The magazine of history with notes and queries, Vol. I, No. 4, April 1905

According to the historical researches set forth in this first paper of a series on the discoveries and explorations of the Mississippi in various portions of its course, the river appears to have been earliest discovered and mapped at its mouth in a voyage of Pinzon and Solis, with Amerigo Vespucci as astronomer and cartographer, probably in March or April, 1498, less than six years from the first landfall of Columbus. Twenty-one years then passed before the Mississippi was next seen in the voyage of Pineda, in 1519, being reached by ascending a bayou from Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas. In 1528 one of the mouths of the Mississippi was seen in the forlorn last voyage of Narvaez; and in 1541 the river was crossed far above its mouth, by the ambitious but ill-fated expedition of De Soto, and after his death it was descended by the survivors in boats to the Gulf. Four times within a period of forty-three years, the Spaniards reached by sea and by land the lower part of the Mississippi. They sought gold or silver in vain, and the extreme disasters of the last two expeditions caused them to abandon their purpose of planting colonies and making this region a part of New Spain. The entire river, excepting its sources, was to be explored and owned by others, but much later, for acquiring wealth by commerce, and for extending the dominion of France.

More than a hundred years after De Soto, the Mississippi was re-discovered by Europeans, this time in its upper course, when Groseilliers and Radisson in 1655, with many Indian canoes, ascended it from 196near the Wisconsin river to Prairie Island, if I have rightly understood the narrative of Radisson; and they crossed it higher, at or near the site of Minneapolis, in 1660, when they went to visit the Prairie Sioux at the farthest limit of their second western expedition.

Halfway in time between De Soto and these men, a Spanish expedition under Oñate, coming from New Mexico in 1601, probably reached the Mississippi near the mouth of the Arkansas river; but we have only scanty records of this exploration, which some have ascribed to the year 1662, following a fictitious narrative that would make Peñalosa the leader.

Eighteen years after Groseilliers and Radisson’s first trip, Joliet and Marquette navigated the Mississippi for a long distance southward from the Wisconsin river, to the Arkansas; and again, after seven years more, in 1680, it was navigated between the Illinois and Rum rivers by Hennepin, and also, above the Wisconsin, by Du Luth. In 1682 La Salle led an expedition from the Illinois to the mouth of the Mississippi, and there proclaimed its vast drainage area to be the property of France. A few years later, about 1685–90, Le Sueur and his relative by marriage, Charleville, canoed from Lake Pepin far upward beyond the Falls of St. Anthony, probably to Sandy Lake; and in the last year of the seventeenth century, just forty-five years after Groseilliers superintended corn-raising by the Hurons on Prairie Island, Le Sueur and a large mining party navigated the whole extent of the Mississippi from near its mouth to the Minnesota river, and then advanced up that stream to the Blue Earth river.

Without seeking or suggestion by himself, the name of Amerigo Vespucci (also commonly known, in Latin, as Americus Vespucius) was bestowed upon the New World, of which, next after Columbus, he was the most notable discoverer in the sense of bringing to the knowledge of Europe what he saw in four voyages. Though not in command of these expeditions, Vespucci was a skilled geographer, and his services as astronomer and pilot were required to determine and chart their courses, with the newly discovered lands. His letters of description, written to friends without expectation of publication, were printed and proved to be of such popular interest that they passed through many editions and translations, leading to the adoption of the name America, after his death, on maps and globes. It was at first applied to Brazil, which Vespucci coasted on his second, third, and fourth voyages, and was later 197extended to both North and South America. In his first voyage, with four vessels, leaving Spain May 10, 1497, and returning October 15, 1498, he appears to have sailed along the shores of Honduras, Yucatan, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, and our southeastern seaboard north to Pamlico Sound.

Between Vespucci and Columbus a cordial and mutual friendship existed, and the Florentine pilot had no wish nor thought of taking away from the Genoese admiral any part of the honor and gratitude due to him. Both sailed in the service of Spain, but Vespucci also made two voyages for Portugal. It was a Latin book by a German geographer, Waldseemüller, published in the little college town of St. Dié, in a valley of the Vosges mountains in northeastern France, April 25, 1507, which first proposed the name America for the region described by Vespucci south of the equator. There was at that time no intention to include under it the countries farther north discovered and explored by Columbus, Cabot, and other navigators. Winsor and Fiske have traced very instructively the growth of European knowledge of the New World, whereby it was finally learned that all the coasts explored from Labrador to the strait of Magellan are connected parts of one vast continent, on which Mercator bestowed the single name America in 1541, twenty-nine years after Vespucci’s death.

Succeeding generations long imputed blame to Vespucci for this supplanting of Columbus in the name of the new continent; but either would have scorned to wrong the other, or to falsify or exaggerate intentionally in the narrations of their voyages. The personal honor of Vespucci has been vindicated by the researches of Alexander Humboldt and the Brazilian historian, Varnhagen; and the latter, in 1865 and 1869, well ascertained that Vespucci’s first voyage, made in 1497–98, concerning which much doubt and misunderstanding remained because of the lack of many details in the narration, was the source of the first mapping of Yucatan, the Gulf of Mexico, and Florida. In Vespucci’s chart of that very early date the Mississippi river was unmistakably delineated, with a three-mouthed delta projecting into the Gulf.

Varnhagen’s luminous researches, published between thirty and forty years ago, were brought more fully to the attention of readers of our English language by Hubert Howe Bancroft in 1883 (Central America, vol. I, pp. 99–107), and especially by John Fiske’s work, The Discovery 198of America, published in 1892. No official reports nor chart of Vespucci’s first voyage, which was probably under the commandership of Pinzon and Solis, are preserved; but two very early maps, evidently drafted in part from the chart of that expedition, still exist, and were essentially reproduced ten years ago by Harrisse, Winsor, and Fiske, in their elaborate discussions of the Columbian and later discoveries.

One of these two maps was drafted in 1502 by some unknown Portuguese cartographer for Alberto Cantino, an Italian envoy at Lisbon, and hence is called the Cantino map. It delineated crudely the southeastern coast of the United States from the “Rio de los Palmas” (River of Palms)—thought by Fiske to be the Apalachicola river—eastward around Florida and onward north to Pamlico Sound, according to my identification. The coast bears many names of rivers, capes, etc.; and the end of the Florida peninsula is called “C. do fim do Abrill” (Cape of the end of April), whence it is inferred that the expedition in which Vespucci sailed on his first voyage, whose chart supplied this part of the Cantino map, passed through the strait separating Florida from Cuba at the end of April, 1498. The west edge of this map is at its River of Palms, so that it fails to give any information of the part of the Gulf of Mexico farther west.

Comparing the Cantino map with our southeastern coast line, to determine how far Vespucci saw it, I recognize, in their order from south to north, Jupiter Inlet or Indian River Inlet, Cape Canaveral, the St. John’s river (or, probably better, Cumberland Sound and St. Mary’s river, or St. Andrew’s Sound, or the Altamaha), then Warsaw and Tybee capes and the Savannah river, Cape Romain, the Santee river, Winyah Bay and the Pedee river, Cape Fear, New River Inlet, Cape Lookout, the Neuse and Pamlico rivers, and Long Shoal Point (or Sandy or Stumpy Point), extending into the north part of Pamlico Sound. The coast is represented as wholly trending to the north, instead of its curvature to the northeast. Entering Pamlico Sound by Ocracoke Inlet (or whatever passage existed near there four hundred years ago), the ships were probably repaired for the homeward voyage at some very favorable harbor among the many along the exceedingly irregular landward side of this sound, or at some distance up either of its large tributary rivers. The chart failed to note the long beach ridge of sand which forms Cape Hatteras and separates the sound (“mar vaano”) from the ocean.

Waldseemüller, the geographer at St. Dié, drafted the second of 199these maps, at some date probably after 1504 and certainly not later than 1508. It was published at Strasburg in an edition of Ptolemy in 1513, and was entitled “Tabula Terre Nove.” From its reference to a “former Admiral,” probably Columbus, it has been often called “the Admiral’s map.” This bears testimony that the expedition described by Vespucci as his first voyage passed the Mississippi and charted its mouths; for west of the Atlantic coast and Florida, where the shores and names are closely like the Cantino map, Waldseemüller gave a distorted outline of the Gulf of Mexico, with a large river emptying into it by three mouths, pushing its delta far into the gulf, in which respect the Mississippi surpasses any other river, this being indeed the most remarkable feature of its embouchure. I cannot doubt, therefore, that Vespucci sailed past the Mississippi delta early in the year 1498, surveying the mouths of the river from the masthead, or very likely entering the river and spending some time there.

The original “Letter of Amerigo Vespucci upon the Isles newly found in his Four Voyages” was published in facsimile pages, with English translation, under the editorship of George Young, in Philadelphia in 1893, forming a book entitled “The Columbus Memorial,” its earlier half being occupied by facsimiles, translations, and notes of letters by Columbus. Only a very scanty statement was given by Vespucci concerning the voyage from some port on the west coast of the Gulf of Mexico, probably that of Tampico, at the mouth of the Panuco river, to “a harbour the best in the world,” which appears to have been on Pamlico Sound or river, whence, after repairing their vessels, the expedition returned to Spain. Vespucci wrote of the voyage between these ports: “We navigated along the coast, always in sight of land, until we had run 870 leagues of it, still going in the direction of the maestrale [northwest], making in our course many halts, and holding intercourse with many peoples; and in several places we obtained gold by barter, but not much in quantity, for we had done enough in discovering the land and learning that they had gold.”

According to Varnhagen and Fiske, the direction of their sailing, noted as northwestward, referred only to the first start from the port in Mexico, after which they continued along the irregular coast line 870 leagues. It seems to me also noteworthy that they came to this Mexican port by a northwestward course, and so perhaps Vespucci meant only that they went directly onward along the coast, which in that part curves very 200gradually to a nearly north course. From his statements of time, with the date indicated by the maps for passing the south end of Florida, it is probable that the expedition was at the Mississippi river late in March or early in April, 1498. Our history of this river, as known to Europeans, thus extends through four centuries.

As my study of the limit of this voyage of Vespucci on the coast of the United States, regarded thus to be at Pamlico Sound, differs somewhat from the conclusions of either Varnhagen or Fiske, it should be remarked further that the Pamlico region had a considerable Indian population, with many little villages, when it was described ninety years later by Thomas Hariot (or Harriott), a member of the unfortunate colony founded there in 1585 on Roanoke island, under the patronage of Sir Walter Raleigh. The Indians at first were very friendly to these colonists, as their forbears had been (if my identification of the locality is true) to Vespucci and his companions. The translation of this part of Vespucci’s narrative, given by Young, is as follows:

“We found an immense number of people, who received us with much friendliness ... the land’s people gave us very great assistance, and continually furnished us with their victuals, so that in this port we tasted very little of our own, which suited our game well, for the stock of provisions which we had for our return passage was little and of sorry kind. Where [i. e. there] we remained 37 days, and went many times to their villages, where they paid us the greatest honour: and [now] desiring to depart upon our voyage, they made complaint to us how at certain times of the year there came from over the sea to this their land, a race of people very cruel, and enemies of theirs, and by means of treachery or of violence slew many of them, and ate them; and some they made captives, and carried them away to their houses or country; and how they could scarcely contrive to defend themselves from them, making signs to us that [those] were an island people and lived out in the sea about a hundred leagues away.

“And so piteously did they tell us this that we believed them, and promised to avenge them of so much wrong, and they remained overjoyed herewith; and many of them offered to come along with us, but we did not wish to take them for many reasons, save that we took seven of them on condition that they should come [i. e. return home] afterwards in canoes, because we did not desire to be obliged to take them back to 201their country: and they were contented, and so we departed from those people, leaving them very friendly towards us: and having repaired our ships, and sailing for seven days out to sea between northeast and east, at the end of the seven days we came upon the islands, which were many, some [of them] inhabited, and others deserted: and we anchored at one of them, where we saw a numerous people who call it Iti: and having manned our boats with strong crews, and [taken] three guns in each, we made for land, where we found [assembled] about 400 men and women, and all naked like the former [peoples].”

Hard fighting ensued. Many of the natives of the islands were killed, and at last the Spaniards put them to flight and returned to their ships. The next day the natives came again to renew the contest, for which the Spaniards landed.

“After a long battle,” wrote Vespucci, describing this second day, “[in which] many of them [were] slain, we put them [again] to flight, and pursued them to a village, having made about 250 of them prisoners; and we burnt the village, and returned to our ships with victory and 250 prisoners, leaving many of them dead and wounded; and of ours there were no more than one killed, and 22 wounded, who all escaped [i. e. recovered], God be thanked.

“We arranged our departure, and the seven men, of whom five were wounded, took an island canoe, and with seven prisoners that we gave them,—four women and three men,—returned to their [own] country full of gladness, wondering at our strength: and we thereupon made sail for Spain, with 222 captive slaves, and reached the port of Cadiz on the 15 day of October, 1498, where we were well received and sold our slaves.”

Varnhagen, in his discussion of Vespucci’s voyages, presented arguments to show that the Bermudas were the group of islands thus occupied by a warlike and cannibal people, whom he supposed to have been soon afterwards exterminated by slavers, before the discovery of these islands by Bermudez about the year 1522, when they were uninhabited. Bancroft and Fiske inclined to the same view. It seems to me more probable, however, that the Bermudas, distant fully six hundred miles from any other land, had never been peopled until they were found by Europeans. The extreme isolation and comparatively small extent of the Bermuda group, far out in the sea, would make it practically impossible 202for the savages, with any means of navigation that they possessed, to pass back and forth in frequent war expeditions.

Instead, I believe that the islands visited by Vespucci on the return voyage were the northern part of the Bahama group. Without going so far from the coast and its inlets as to incur much danger of storms, or to completely lose the course and the reckoning in cloudy weather, canoe expeditions from the Bahamas could come frequently, as the narrative says, to attack the Indians in the region of Pamlico Sound. These Indians, too, sometimes pursuing their enemies homeward, might learn the situation of their islands, and would thus be able to pilot the way for Vespucci’s ships. According to this view, they sailed south from Pamlico Sound to the Bahamas. The direction of east-northeast, given in the narrative, must be a mistake, being applicable instead for the course taken from the Bahamas to Spain. The larger islands of this very extensive group had many inhabitants when discovered by Columbus; but they were afterward wholly depopulated by the unspeakable cruelties of slave-traders.

The journal and letters of Columbus show that the native people of the Bahamas suffered much from the attacks of the man-eating Caribs, whom they greatly feared but often doubtless bravely repelled. We have also evidence from Vespucci that the Caribs advanced much farther north for war and rapine, boldly navigating the sea in their great canoes, to Pamlico Sound. Whether they had a permanent settlement on the northwestern islands of the Bahama group, can probably never be known; but I believe that either they or the more peaceable Bahama islanders there were attacked, defeated, and many of them captured and sold into slavery, by this Spanish expedition.

This discussion or explanation, though not directly relating to the discovery of the Mississippi river, seems to me needful to set forth my reasons for thinking that Vespucci’s narrative of his first voyage is a true account, excepting mistakes of his memory or writing or of later copying.

“To-morrow is Valentine’s Day. You are mine. I have chose you out among the rest, the reason is I love you best—so, my Dear, God bless you. I wish you Health and Happiness.”—Isabella Cleghorn to Capt. Joseph Hynson, in a letter from London dated the 13th of February, 1777, intercepted in the general post-office by the British Secret Service, and now preserved among the Auckland MSS. in King’s College, Cambridge.

Isabella Cleghorn? Who was she that her valentine fancies should weigh with nations and be treasured in the archives of a State? A factor in the birth of the American republic? Let those so minded review the evidence and construct an answer to suit themselves.

When the events of our Revolutionary war destroyed commerce with the mother country, it followed in nature, if obscurely, that Joseph Hynson, a young Maryland sea-captain, employed in the London carrying trade, should find his occupation gone. Beating about in search of a new one suited to his taste, Hynson shortly betook himself to France, there to solicit from the American Commissioners some maritime employment in the service of Congress. Several well-known Marylanders in Paris at the time vouched for the newcomer as an able seaman and an honest man. The Commissioners, glad to find a trusty hand, enrolled him among their elect, and Hynson soon received from them orders to cross over to Dover, there secretly to purchase a good cutter-sloop. This vessel, he was told, he should presently command on a voyage across the Atlantic, bearing despatches to Congress.

Once arrived on English soil, it is far from strange that the lively mariner should have longed for a glimpse of old haunts. The circumspect gentlemen in Paris would hardly have smiled, however, upon their emissary’s sally into the heart of London; and his visit to his friends the Jumps, at their house in Stepney Causeway, spoke little for his sense of responsibility.

Mrs. Jump, Hynson’s friend, received him with tender rejoicing. Robert, her son, echoed the welcome, and pretty little Miss Cleghorn, neighbor and intimate of the household, promptly surrendered her heart 204to the handsome sailor. Hynson, “a lusty and a black-looking fellow,” with a salt-water gallantry very potent in the feminine eye, warmed under influences so generous. Discretion melted within him, and before his departure for Dover he had acquainted his hostess with the secret in his charge. Anxiety as great as her affection now filled the good woman’s mind. Sympathizing in private with the American cause, she yet dreaded so dangerous a service for one she loved. And when, in the newness of her trouble, Mr. Vardill, an American clergyman supposedly “disaffected,” chanced to call upon her, her distracted wits could not conceal from his astuteness quite all that loyalty to Hynson demanded.

As Fate would have it, this Vardill, good rebel though he seemed to be, lived, as a matter of fact, “chiefly on his Majesty’s bounty.” Windfalls such as Mrs. Jump had provided might be turned to excellent use in his own and his master’s interest. Lord North, to whose ante-chamber he accordingly ran with his news, pronounced “the farther prosecution of the business a matter of the utmost importance.” And from that instant Joseph Hynson’s every act came under the surveillance of spies, agents assailed him with every artifice of corruption, his most careless note was scrutinized in its passage through the mails; and, finally, poor Isabella’s innocent, schoolgirl love letters seldom came inviolate to the eyes for which alone they were intended.

“My Lord, I take the liberty of sending to you the enclosed Letter from Captain Hynson to his Mistress.... The writing on one side of the Letter is part of a rough draft of a Letter which his Mistress wrote to him,”

says Vardill to North, February 10, 1777. Hynson’s letter is a mere impersonal account of his safe arrival in Dover, but Isabella’s “rough draft,” scrawled on the back of her lover’s page, seems yet warm with the pressure of the hand that wrote by the flicker of Mrs. Jump’s firelight:

“——for my Part I have not slept one hour since your (departure).” [Vardill, in his hasty theft, tore away the sheet so closely as to sacrifice the end of each line.] “I come over (to the Jumps’) as often as I can, but not with such (frequency) as I us’d, for I detest the kitchen and the Arm chair (now). We all do. You will make (us) very happy if you will (come) and fill it up again, for Gods 205Sake Come home for I am (like) one out of their sences about you.... For Gods sake write to me, ... for I am wreatched all (ways). Did you think that Id spare a Groat for Postage. No, not even if I been distressed for it. Mrs. Jump (would) lend it me, so don’t let that be your Excuse, as I (think) you Cant have forgot me in a week. Write——, and send to Mrs. Jump, and Come home——”

A second sad little letter, dated February 13, met another fate. Intercepted and copied in the General Post-Office, it was then restored scatheless to the mail and allowed to go its way. The copy alone is found in the Auckland MSS.

“I rec’d your kind Letter which affords me great pleasure, as it allways does to hear from them that I so dearly love. I should have wrote to you before but Mrs. Jump said I must wait a Day or two, but with great Anxiety I waited.... I have been in great distress about you. Night and Day you are Never out of my Thoughts, my dear Hynson. I must leave off, for I was not certain whether I should write or no.... My dear Hynson, write to me as often as you can, for that’s all the happiness I have, to hear from you——”

Two days later, in a sudden access of fear of the dangerous adventure the nature of which her lover was concealing from her, Isabella wrote again:

“——Dear Hynson, I am afraid you are going to engage in such a thing that will be a means for us to never met again. Oh Hynson, as you will not be open and candid enough to tell me what plan you are upon, I must submit—I long to see you.”

Others, writing to Hynson from the house in Stepney Causeway, confirm Isabella’s account of her melancholy. “As to poor Bell, you have not been out of her head since you have been gone,” Mrs. Jump wrote him, while Robert added a postscript merely to say:

“As to my Sister Bell’s Behaviour, for Mamma has adopted her [as a] daughter.... She has been nowhere but to Mrs. Hazelden’s and our house since you went, and you have all this time engrossed all her Thoughts and Discourses.”

“I am now sitting beside Mrs. Jump and your fair Isabella, who sends off a Letter to you, and we shall all plague you till we have you again by the Fireside with us, for we can’t spare You. You are a happy Fellow to be so necessary to the Happiness of the Fair. I long to crack a bottle with you once more, and could wish that the summer was come, that we might have a little Junketting about the Country together.”

Hynson himself, writing from Dover to Mrs. Jump, said teasingly, for Isabella’s overhearing:

“You desire me to come back to be tormented by that little Girl, but that is out of the question.”

Yet when a day or two passed without bringing news of the “little Girl,” he grew uneasy, especially in view of the chance of having to quit the country without a farewell message from her.

“Our vessel is not yet ready,” [he told Robert] “but I expect her every minute, when I shall proceed to France, where I long to be.... I am engaged in a manner very agreeable to myself. I shall have an Opportunity now of exerting myself in my Country’s Cause, which is the height of my Ambition.... If I don’t get a letter from Bell this evening I shall sit down in the morning and write her a Discharge.”

But the coveted letter, delayed, probably, by secret-service Philistines, arrived in the nick of time to prevent so desperate a measure:

“Dear Mother,” [wrote its recipient to Mrs. Jump], “I received your kind Letter Thursday night ... and on Friday 207Night one from that little Rogue Belle. I have been reading them ever since.... I have wrote a long Letter to Bell, which I hope she will pay some attention to, as I should not write in the manner I have done if she were indifferent to me. Tell her to be a good Girl.... The reason of my stiling you Mother, is, Bob says you have adopted Bell your Daughter, and if she is a good Girl I must call her Sister—or something else.”

At last, after many vexatious delays, the vessel was secured and Hynson set sail for France, the haven of his ambition. But his final thought was for Isabella:

“I have enclosed a letter to my little Girl,” [he wrote to a friend,] “which I shall desire your care of. You will take care it goes to Mrs. Jump.”

And the first mail coming from Havre after Hynson’s arrival there brought under the eye of the English agent a packet for “Miss Isabella Cleghorn”—a long letter full of good-humored chatter about men, women, and fashions, but ending very seriously with this significant passage:

“My Dear Girl: ... I don’t doubt but if I have success my present situation will be very advantageous ... when I shall be able to receive you with open arms. Till then I shall only wish to hear from you. I shall lose no opportunity of writing to you.... Believe me to be at all times, yours affectionately,

So, very simply, moved this obscure love-affair of long ago. Yet the thought that its consequences might involve the destinies of nations may often have passed through its hero’s mind—a mind essentially intriguing and filled with keen ambition untrammelled by doubt. Nor was the man’s assurance without its legitimate base. Trusted, on the one hand with an important mission in his country’s service, promised the care of affairs of yet greater weight, and cognizant of a multitude of secrets of state, Hynson wielded no inconsiderable power. And when, on the other hand, the chief ministers of the throne completed the circle of his influence by making him an object of flattering solicitations, he felt that his hour was indeed come, and wrote, in frank exultation:

And now for the bias of the man. In the matter of politics, Hynson, like many a greater statesman, hoped for reconciliation without separation. Colonial independence thrown into the scale, his respect for the integrity of the kingdom weighed heavily against it, and this delicate balance of his public principles gave to his private interests a possibly decisive importance. England, the centre of royal government, commanded his abstract veneration. England, Isabella’s home, held his heart and his pleasure. “He hopes ... to entitle Himself to a Competence and to sit down in England, where he has a Connection which he is anxious to resume,” the King learned from his agents. To that tune the royal money-bags forthwith jingled cunningly.

II.

Though the name of neither Hynson or his sweetheart figures in any of the serious histories of the day, only an unforeseen incident prevented his, at least, from being there recorded. Isabella’s influence was to change all his original program. It now remains to show how serious were the results of Hynson’s uncertain faith, and with what measure of plausibility Isabella Cleghorn may be called an actual though humble and unconscious factor in the creation of the American republic.

Hynson, as has already been stated, was a man possessed of ambition, self-confidence, and a love of intrigue. Half his heart’s desire was to see an early reconciliation of mother-country and colony; the other half to be himself the maker of the peace. His connection with the American Commission to Versailles he consequently regarded purely as a means to this end—his intimacy with the Commission’s affairs as a password to the confidence of Downing Street. Never fearing to match his own wit against that of two nations, he clung to the idea that England must be brought to offer to America acceptable terms of compromise before the conclusion of a Franco-American understanding should lend new courage to the rebellious colony. And English diplomatists astutely upheld his faith in his own powers of high accomplishment: “Ce Capitaine continue à voir le Ld. Stormont, qui lui fait l’accueil le plus capable de le flatter,” said 209Gérald, in his report of April 3, 1777. “Cet homme simple, honnête mais bien intentionné, en a la tête tournee et se croit destiné â être le pacificateur des deux nations.”

The first move in Hynson’s cloudy scheme involved the delivery to the British of certain valuable despatches going from the Commissioners to Congress. As bearer of these papers, which were to be placed in his hands by Franklin in person, the agent lay under orders to sail from Havre about March 10, in the cutter-sloop that he himself had smuggled over from Dover for the purpose. Lords North and Suffolk, being informed accordingly, despatched Lieut.-Col. Edward Smith to Havre, “furnished with £800 on account, in case it should become necessary to make use of money.” No sooner had Smith opened negotiations, however, than a new feature of the scheme developed. Hynson’s complaisance had its limits, and he utterly refused to turn over the despatches in simple barter. “Persuasion hangs not on my tongue to attain it,” wrote Smith. The precious papers must be forcibly wrested from their keeper, on the very deck of his vessel. Every interest, therefore, turned to that vessel’s capture.

“The sloop” [Smith told his principals across the Channel] “is hawl’d up into the most private part of the harbour, and the King’s Dock. Men are at work upon her with all expedition. I mean that she shall be stuffed with everything that is good, to make her a better and more valuable prize.... So tell your ships to be well apprized.... You had better have sixty ships out than miss her.”

The Admiralty responded promptly. Vessels of war on Channel stations received minute instructions toward effecting so important a capture. No precaution was spared, yet in the event all proved vain, for Hynson was balked of his commission.

“A Schooner arrived in the Mean Time at Nantz from Baltimore,” [explained Smith] “with News of the Hessian Misfortune, which determined Messrs. Deane and Franklin to wait for more Events ... to send their Despatches ... and to employ Hynson, on whose Courage & Seamanship they place great Confidence, in some other Service.”

210Foiled in his first design, Hynson now proceeded upon a new one—that of gathering from the Commission to Versailles such news of American affairs as, placed in British hands, might serve his object. Some of these gleanings he gave to Lord Stormont, in Paris, some he confided to Smith, “whom he met as often as they found it convenient,” and some travelled by post to England, under protection of the covers of Admiral Rodney, Hynson’s fellow-lodger in a Parisian inn.

“In doing this,” said Smith, whose relations with Hynson were always most friendly, “he found the Character & Situation of the several People with whom he has to do very favorable to his Purpose. Franklin lives at a little Distance from Paris, but seldom passes a Day without seeing Deane; the latter appears to be the More active & efficient Man, but less circumspect and Secret, his Discretion not being always proof against the natural Warmth of his temper & being weakened also by his own Ideas of the importance of his present Employment. His Residence is at the Hotel d’Hombourg, where he keeps a regular Table for such of his Countrymen as are engaged in the service of the Congress (Carmichael, Weeks, Hynson, Nicholson, Moyland, Franklin’s Grandson, and others).... Hynson, who is a free, easy Fellow, & in good Graces of the whole Party, has a real regard for Carmichael & labours hard to draw him into the same system with himself.... It is certainly material, if he succeeds. For tho’ both Deane and Franklin may be, & are, according to Carmichael’s, account, too ambitious & Determined (or, in other Words, too malevolent against Great Britain,) ever to adopt any line of conduct short of American Independence, yet Deane and Franklin can, in themselves, individually, do little, & if they are betrayed by those whom they must employ, their Agency will soon come to Disgrace & Despair.”

No ships bearing arms or stores left France for America unknown to the English Admiralty if Hynson’s diligence could prevent it. And Hynson’s diligence seldom slept. During all this period, Deane’s confidence in his agent never faltered. Toward the end of May, 1777, he wrote to John Hancock concerning him:

“——I must in duty to my Country say, I believe he will render ... good service in the Navy, being a good Seaman, & of a cool, sedate, and Steady Temper of mind.”

211Again, on the 5th of September, he says: “I can answer for his fidelity,” of which confidence a conclusive proof shortly came forward. On the 7th of October Deane informed Hynson, then in Havre de Grace:

“The Commissioners are sending a packet to America & by this conveyance Capt’n Folger has been wrote to, to take the charge of it if not otherwise engaged, but as it is of importance that this packet goes by safe hands, ... if he cannot go, ... I must depend on your executing the commission.”

The story of the packet’s arrival at the little lodging-house in Havre where Folger and Hynson lived together is thus succinctly told by Lieut. Col. Smith:

“Folger being ready and willing to sail away with them immediately, Hynson took an opportunity of sending Folger out upon some business in the Docks, while he, slipping off the string which was intended to secure the end of the packett, gott possession of the despatches, ... and then, making up paper equal in length and thickness to what he had taken out, he dextrously filled up the vacancy, shutt up the end of the bundle, passed back again the same string; and upon Folger’s returning with a Mr. Moyland, he had the bundle well cover’d, put in a bag, seal’d and deliver’d it to Folger in presence of Moyland, never to be given again out of Folger’s hands (unless to be thrown overboard in case of meeting with one of our ships, or into the hands of those they are directed for).”

“Leaving behind an excuse for his absence, skilfully prepared to hoodwink Deane, Hynson then hurried over to London, carrying the precious papers with him. Official England delighted in the prettiness of the trick.”

“Dear Eden,” [wrote the Earl of Suffolk]. “I am tickled with uncommon pleasure ... at the neat manœuvre by which Hynson has ... proved himself an honest Rascal. He well deserves his reward. I desire I may communicate (the despatches) myself to Lord Mansfield.”

And Eden, in joy too great for formal phrases, informs the King’s self that Hynson “is an honest Rascal, and no fool.”

So it happened that poor, gulled Folger eventually delivered to Congress, 212with all due ceremony, a package of blank paper, and was cast into prison for his pains. Duplicate despatches sent out by the Commission soon after Folger’s departure were lost at sea, and in consequence of the two calamities no official intelligence reached Congress from France between May, 1777, and May 2, 1778, the day of the arrival of the French treaty.

As to the effect of this circumstance, Deane is somewhat explicit. Mentioning Hynson’s exploit as “the only instance of our having our despatches intercepted,” he continues:

“At the time of making out the despatches our prospects both in France and in America were extremely discouraging. The Court of France appeared to view our cause as absolutely desperate, and even the appearance of what little countenance they had before shown us they gave the most unequivocal proofs of their resolution to disavow and leave us to our fate.... The Commissioners were at that time refused any access to the Minister, even in the most secret manner.

“... The Commrs. had not, for some time previous to this date, sent any information of their situation to Congress, for they scarcely knew what to write, and hitherto they had said nothing in a discouraging style, but, on the contrary, had said everything they could ... to encourage Congress to persevere, and ultimately to expect aid from France. In these (Folger’s despatches), though, ... they could not avoid the mention of facts from which the most unfavourable conclusions must have been drawn by Congress had Folger arrived with the dps. instead of blank paper....

“... On the other hand, the British Ministers, from the contents of those despatches and letters, found in what state we were with the Court of Versailles.... This encouraged them to prosecute the war with vigour, confident that it must soon terminate successfully on their part.”

The result of Hynson’s plot, if Deane’s conclusions be accepted, was, therefore, directly contrary to his aim. By his diversion of the despatches, British hopes were raised and British offers of concession delayed until the critical moment had passed and America’s courage had risen beyond all thought of compromise. Thanks to Hynson’s intervention,

“when the Commissioners on the part of Great Britain eventually arrived in America to propose terms of accommodation to Congress, 213no discouraging intelligence had been received ... from the Commissioners in Paris, and they (Congress) still relied on the effect which the victory at Saratoga was expected to have in their favour. They were not, as the event has shown, deceived.”

“In every age of the world,” Deane reflects, “many, if not most of the greatest events, have been produced from the most trifling causes.”

A defensible, if not a profitable, argument might be brought forward to prove the “honest Rascal” the savior of the republic. And, to split a hair still finer, Isabella Cleghorn might, by the same token, be hailed as that savior’s inspiration.

Lord Stormont believed in Hynson’s sincerity as would-be conciliator of the contending powers. Deane, despite heavy evidence, was never perhaps wholly convinced of his agent’s venality. And Hynson himself again and again protested to Smith:

“My motives are not interest,” or, “while ever there is a prospect of the disputes being settled I shall still be in hopes.”

“My dear girl, if I have success I shall be able to receive you with open Arms.”

Certainly the King’s gift of a round sum in cash, a pension of £200 yearly, and, if Deane be right, a rank in the English navy, placed that consummation well within his reach, while his ensuing desertion of the stirring life that his soul had loved and retirement into country solitude pointed strongly toward a master motive satisfied. Samson was shorn and drawn into paths of inglorious peace. “God knows what he does!” said a wondering witness. “He dwells with his wife in a little country house, a quarter of a mile out the town.”

BANKS AND BANKING

In a circular letter dated December 4, 1860, addressed to the banks, Governor Moore announced that should the State secede from the Union, as seemed probable, $1,000,000 in specie or its equivalent, would be needed by the administration. The State bonds could not be sold in the North, nor in Europe except at a ruinous discount, and a tax on the people at this time would be inexpedient. Therefore he recommended that the banks hold their specie. Otherwise there would be a run on them and should an extra session of the Legislature be called to authorize the banks to suspend specie payments, such action would produce a run and thus defeat the object. He requested the banks to suspend specie payments, trusting to the convention to legalize this action.^[1] The Governor then issued an address to the people stating his reasons for such a step. It was done, he said, at the request and by the advice of many citizens whose opinions were entitled to respect and consideration. Such a course, they thought, would relieve the banks from a run during the cotton season, enable them to aid the State, do away with the expense of a special session of the Legislature, prevent the sale of State bonds at a great sacrifice, and prevent extra taxation of the people in time of financial crisis.^[2]

Three banks—the Central, Eastern, and Commercial—suspended at his request and made a loan of $200,000 in coin to the State. Their suspension was legalized later by an ordinance of the convention. The Bank of Mobile, and the Northern and the Southern Banks refused to suspend, though they announced that the State should have their full support. The Legislature passed an act in February, 1861, authorizing the suspension, on condition that the banks subscribe for 10-year State 215bonds at their par value. The bonds were to stand as capital, and the bills issued by the banks upon these bonds were to be receivable in payment of taxes. The amount which each bank was to pay into the Treasury for the bonds was fixed, and no interest was to be paid by the State on these bonds until specie payments were resumed. All the banks suspended under these acts, and thus the government secured most of the coin in the State.^[3] In October, 1861, before all the banks had suspended, State bonds at par to the amount of $975,066.68 had been sold—all but $28,500 to the banks. By early acts specie payments were to be resumed in May, 1862, but in December, 1861, the suspension was continued until “one year after the conclusion of peace with the United States.” By this law the banks were to receive at par the Confederate Treasury notes in payment of debts, their notes being good for public dues. The banks were further required to make a loan of $200,000 to the State to pay its quota of the Confederate war tax of August 16, 1861. (The privilege of suspension was evidently worth paying for.^[4])

The banking law was revised by the convention so that a bank might deposit with the State comptroller stocks of the Confederate States or of Alabama, receiving in return notes countersigned by the comptroller amounting to twice the market value of the bonds deposited. If a bank had on deposit with the comptroller under the old law any stocks of the United States, they could be withdrawn upon the deposit of an equal amount of Confederate stocks or bonds of the State. The same ordinance provided that none except citizens of Alabama and members of State corporations might engage in the banking business under this law. But no rights under the old law were to be affected. It was further provided that subsequent legislation might require any “free” bank to reduce its circulation to an amount not exceeding the market value of the bonds deposited with the comptroller. The notes thus retired were to be cancelled by the comptroller.^[5] The suspension of specie payments was followed by an increase of banking business; note issues were enlarged; 216eleven new banks were chartered,^[6] and none wound up affairs. They paid dividends regularly of from six to ten per cent. in coin, or Confederate notes, or in both. Speculation in government funds was quite profitable to the banks.

ISSUES OF BONDS AND NOTES

The convention authorized the General Assembly of the State to issue bonds to such amounts and in such sums as seemed best, thus giving the Assembly practically unlimited discretion. But it was provided that money must not be borrowed except for purposes of military defense, unless by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house; and the faith and credit of the State was pledged for the punctual payment of principal and interest.^[7]

The Legislature hastened to avail itself of this permission. In 1861, a bond issue of $2,000,000 for defense, and not liable to taxation, was authorized at one time; at another, $385,000 for defense besides an issue of $1,000,000 in treasury notes receivable for taxes. Of the first issue authorized only $1,759,500 was ever issued. Opposition to taxation caused the State to take up the war tax of $2,000,000 (August 19, 1861), and for this purpose $1,700,000 in bonds were issued, the banks supplying the remainder. There was a relaxation in taxation during the war; paper money was easily printed, and the people were opposed to heavy taxes.^[8]

In 1862, bonds to the amount of $2,000,000 were issued for the benefit of the indigent. The Governor was given unlimited authority to issue bonds and notes, receivable for taxes, to “repair the treasury,” and $2,085,000 in bonds was issued under this permit. These bonds drew interest at 6%, ran for 20 years, and sold at a premium of from 50% to 100%. Bonds were used both for civil and for military purposes, but chiefly for the support of the destitute. Treasury notes to the amount of $3,500,000 were issued, drawing interest at 5%, and receivable for taxes. The Confederate Congress came to the aid of Alabama with a grant of 217$1,200,000 for the defense of Mobile.^[9] In 1863, notes and bonds for $4,000,000 were issued for the benefit of indigent families of soldiers, and $1,500,000 for defense; $90,000 in bonds was paid for the steamer Florida, which was later turned over to the Confederate government.^[10] In 1864, $7,000,000 were appropriated for the support of indigent families of soldiers and an unlimited issue of bonds and notes was authorized.^[11] In 1862, the Alabama Legislature proposed that each State should guarantee the debt of the Confederate States in proportion to its representation in Congress. This measure was opposed by the other States, and failed.^[12] A year later a resolution of the Legislature declared that the people of Alabama would cheerfully submit to any tax, not too oppressive in amount or unequal in operation, laid by the Confederate government for the purpose of reducing the volume of currency and appreciating its value. The Assembly also signified its disapproval of the scheme put forth at the bankers’ meeting at Augusta, Georgia—to issue Confederate bonds with interest payable in coin and to levy a heavy tax of $60,000,000 to be paid in coin or in coupons of the proposed new issue.^[13]

The Alabama treasury had many Confederate notes received in taxes. Before April 1, 1864, (when such notes were to be taxed one-third of their face value), these could be exchanged at par for 20-year 6% Confederate bonds. After that date the Confederate notes were fundable at 33⅓% of their face value only.^[14] After June 14, 1864, the State treasury could exchange Confederate notes for 4% non-taxable Confederate bonds, or one-half for 6% bonds and one-half for new notes. The Alabama Legislature of 1864 arranged for funding the notes according to the latter method.^[15] The Alabama Legislature of 1861 had made it lawful for debts contracted after that year to be payable in Confederate notes.^[16] Later, a meeting of the citizens of Mobile proposed to ostracise those who refused to accept Confederate notes. Cheap money caused a clamor for more, and the heads of the people were filled with fiat money notions. 218The rise in prices stimulated more issues of notes. On February 9, 1861, $1,000,000 in State Treasury notes was issued and in 1862, there was a similar issue of $2,000,000 more. These State notes were at a premium in Confederate notes, which were discredited by the Confederate Funding Act of February 17, 1864. Confederate notes were eagerly offered for State notes, but the State stopped the exchange.^[17] December 13, 1864, a law was passed providing for an unlimited issue of State notes redeemable in Confederate notes and receivable for taxes.

Private individuals often issued notes on their own account, and an enormous number was put into circulation. The Legislature, by a law of December 9, 1862, prohibited the issue of “shin-plaster” or other private money under penalty of $20 to $500 fine, and any person circulating such money was to be deemed the maker. It was not successful, however, in reducing the flood of private tokens; the credit of individuals was better than the credit of the government.

Executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees were authorized to make loans to the Confederacy, and to purchase and receive for debts due them bonds and Treasury notes of the Confederacy and of Alabama, and the interest coupons of the same. One-tenth of the Confederate $15,000,000 loan of February 28, 1861 was subscribed in Alabama.^[18] In December 1863, the Legislature laid a tax of 37½% on bonds of the State and of the Confederacy unless the bonds had been bought directly from the Confederate government or from the State.^[19] This was to punish speculators. After October 7, 1864, the State Treasurer was directed to refuse to receive for taxes (except at a discount of ⅓) Confederate notes issued before the date of the Funding Act (Feb. 17, 1864). Later, Confederate notes were taken for taxes at their full market value.^[20]

Gold was shipped through the blockade at Mobile to pay the interest on the State bonded debt held in London. It has been charged that this money was borrowed from the Central, Commercial, and Eastern Banks and was never repaid, recovery being denied on the ground that the State could not be sued.^[21] But the banks received State and Confederate bonds 219under the new banking law in return for their coin. The exchange was willingly made, for otherwise the banks would have had to continue specie payments or forfeit their charters. And to continue specie payments meant immediate bankruptcy.^[22] After the war, the State was forbidden to pay any debt incurred in aid of the war, nor could the bonds issued in aid of the war be redeemed. The banks suffered just as all others suffered, and it is difficult to see why the State should make good the losses of the banks in Confederate bonds, and not make good the losses of private individuals. To do either would be contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.

To dispose of nearly seven million dollars in small notes must have kept the Treasury very busy during the last seven months of its existence. It is interesting to note that the Treasury kept at work until May 24, 1865, six weeks after the surrender of General Lee.

[This famous poem—one of Whitman’s most vigorously descriptive, if not his best in this form of composition—is written on a quarto sheet, and signed: a few pencil corrections do not show in the print. The MS. was sold in New York in 1903.]

Pessimists point to the “frenzied politics” of our day as evidence of the facilis descensus Averni from the purity, the lofty and unselfish patriotism of the fathers; and they sigh over the decadence of the statesmen of these modern times, lament the corruption and essential dishonesty of parties and partisans in general, and yearn for a return of the purity and patriotism and statesmanship of the Fathers. The student of history, however, finds that human nature was and has been much the same through all the ages. The business contracts between merchants of Babylon, stamped on bricks five thousand years ago, and brought to light but yesterday, are in much the same terms as those settled in the courts to-day. The Code of Hammurabi, formulated 2200 B. C., shows in every sentence that like questions of rights and wrongs of persons and things were raised in that remote era as are discussed in the luminous pages of Blackstone, and determined in our own day in the fori of the several States, and in the Capitol at Washington. Is it possible, then, that the development of mankind has been on entirely different lines in the political arena? The thoughtful reader must say no. Freeman’s remark has become trite: “History is past politics, and politics past History.” The burning political issues of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1799; the purchase of Louisiana; the Embargo of 1807–09; the annexation of Texas; the Oregon question, with its alluring alliteration “Fifty-four-forty or fight;” “Bleeding Kansas” and its other expressions, “Free Speech, Free Soil, Free Men;” Anti-Slavery, Abolitionism and Secession; the Greenback craze—not to speak of more recent partisan shibboleths—all were “politics” of the intensest sort in their day. All are now relegated to the background of “history,” to be studied in the cold chiaro-oscuro of the past. And the men who led the forces marshaled against each other in those great conflicts.—Ah, “there were giants in those days!” Yes, but to their contemporaries they were merely politicians, too often opprobriously dubbed “political tricksters,” or even “traitors to their country.” What a lot of truth there is in the late Thomas B. Reed’s cynicism: “A statesman is a dead politician.”

The lust for power is one of the deepest instincts of the human mind. Civilization has not quenched it, but has merely directed it into new channels. Instead of the savage chieftain who once impressed his will on his fellow-tribesmen by tomahawk or flint-tipped arrow-head, or 222by terrifying shamanism, we have the statesman—“politician,” if you will—exercising his mastery by all the subtle arts which a keen intellect and a profound knowledge of men and the influences to which they are severally and collectively subject, can devise. Here is a splendid field for the orator, to persuade by his burning eloquence; for the leader, to show his mastery over men; for the partisan, to cajole with the promise of sordid spoil, or to threaten the recreant with loss of influence. There is a glorious zest in this pursuit of power, in this forging to the front as a leader of men. Admirable ambition, if inspired by worthy motives. Fascinating, most attractive, to every virile man. What wonder, if in this eager thirst for eminence among his fellows, the ardent leader becomes oblivious at times to the relative rights of meum and tuum? Success is his aim. He must win. The future of his party, the welfare of his country, demands it. No time to palter over finical questions of what is proper, of what is right. “The end justifies the means.” Ah, facilis est descensus Averni, indeed.

All this by way of preliminary to a few gleanings from some old records of New Jersey, illustrating “past politics” principally in the days of that erstwhile Royal Province, under that unique Chief Executive, Lord Cornbury, who was foisted on the people by his amiable cousin, Queen Anne, doubtless glad enough of the chance to banish him by an ocean’s broad expanse from her Court. For a score of years New Jersey had been divided into two Provinces—East Jersey, largely controlled by the Scotch proprietors and their settlers; and West Jersey, dominated by the outwardly meek but inwardly determined Quakers. When the two Provinces were reunited into one—New Jersey—the profligate courtier, the ruffling gallant, the soldier of doubtful reputation, Lord Cornbury, of all men was chosen as the solvent to blend these and all the other antagonistic elements in the Province into one harmonious whole.

His troubles began with the first election of representatives to the General Assembly, held between August 13 and September 9, 1703. That body was to be composed of two members each from Perth Amboy and Burlington, and ten from each Division—twenty-four in all. (So long ago was ordained the exact political equality of East Jersey and West Jersey, which has been scrupulously maintained for two centuries, at least in the upper branch of the Legislature, regardless of the overwhelming preponderance of population now concentrated in what was formerly East Jersey). In the latter Division there appeared at the polls forty-two qualified voters in the interest of the Scotch Proprietors, a great part of 223them from New York and Long Island. “On behalfe of the Country there appear’d betwixt three & four hundred men qualifyed & had they thought necessary could have brought severall Hundred more.” But the High Sheriff (Thomas Gordon) appointed in the Scotch interest, “multiply’d Tricks, upon Tricks, till at last barefac’d he made ye returne contrary to the choice of the Country.” So too in West Jersey, the Quakers, though really in the majority only in Burlington County, “by their usuall application & diligence” secured the return of ten members. Lord Cornbury was intensely disgusted at so adverse a result, and complained to the Lords of Trade that “Severall persons very well qualified to serve, could not be elected, because they had not a thousand Acres of Land, though at the same time, they had twice the vallue of that Land, in money and goods, they being trading men, [while] on the other hand some were chosen because they have a thousand Acres of Land, and at the same time have not twenty shillings in money, drive noe trade, and can neither read nor write, nay they can not answer a question that is asked them, of this sort we have two in the Assembly.” However, the Royal Governor was prejudiced against the plebeian Jerseymen.

When the House met, November 10, 1703, a petition was presented, complaining of an undue election of five of the members returned for the Eastern Division. Sheriff Gordon, at his request, was furnished with a copy of the petition, and time was given him to answer it, and to send for such persons as he should find necessary for his defense. Gordon, by the way, was a member of the House from Perth Amboy, and so had a great advantage over his adversaries, as he could sit on his own case, and by judicious logrolling could influence votes in his own behalf. Nor is there anything in the records to show that he had the slightest hesitation in availing himself of his opportunities. Apparently he had doubts about the allegiance of one of his fellow-members, Richard Hartshorne, for on November 16, Messrs. Gordon and Reid were given permission to ask the Governor and Council whether Hartshorne was qualified to sit in the House, and to give their opinion thereon. The Governor advised Mr. Hartshorne to qualify himself as the law required (by the ownership of a thousand acres of land), but in the meantime the House ordered him to withdraw, until he should qualify himself, and he left his seat. The complaint against Gordon was taken up on November 16, and evidence produced on both sides on that and two succeeding days. Hartshorne was unseated on the 17th, and on the 18th it was voted that the evidence for the regularity and legality of the return made by Mr. Gordon 224was sufficient, and the petition was dismissed. The House declined, however, to allow the Sheriff his charges against the petitioners. It was also voted not to take any action against the clerks who took the poll at the election in Amboy, and who had refused to deliver them to the Sheriff. It is quite apparent that the House was pretty evenly divided between the friends and foes of the Sheriff-Assemblyman. It is not unlikely that Gordon’s finesse in unseating Hartshorne before the final vote was taken determined the result.

Governor Cornbury found the First Assembly so recalcitrant that he dissolved it, September 28, 1704, and a few days later issued writs for the election of a new Assembly, to meet at Burlington on November 9, 1704. His enemies charged that “The writs were issued and the Elections directed to be made, in such hast, that in one of the writs the Qualifications of the persons to be elected was omitted, and the Sheriff of one County not sworn till Three days before the Election, and many of the Townes had not any (much less due) notice of the day of Election.” Despite these extraordinary precautions of the Governor to have the elections controlled by his friends there was an adverse majority in the Second Assembly, when it met at Burlington on November 13, 1704, and organized the next day. How was this to be overcome? The way was quickly and readily devised. On November 15, Messrs. Thomas Revel and Daniel Leeds, two of Cornbury’s staunchest supporters in the Council, presented a petition to that body, questioning the right of Thomas Lambert, Thomas Gardiner and Joshua Wright to sit in the House. The Governor thereupon refused to swear in those three members-elect. The next day the petitioners asked for fourteen days’ time in which to show that these men lacked the requisite property qualification of 1,000 acres of land. The object in asking this long time was to outwear the patience of the Assembly. The same day (November 16) the members in question produced to the House copies of returns of surveys of lands possessed by them, and were given further time to make their qualifications more fully appear, the result being that on December 6 the House decided that each of the men owned a thousand acres of land, and voted unanimously to seat them. Lord Cornbury, however, still declined to administer to them the prescribed oath. The counties for which the three men were chosen to serve, with several other representatives, delivered an address to his Excellency for having them admitted, which, “mett with noe other Reception, than being called a piece of Insolence, and Ill manners.” By this exclusion a majority of one was gained for the Governor’s party, 225and he having secured such legislation as he most desired adjourned the Assembly, December 12, to meet April 27, 1705, leaving the three members-elect in question to cool their heels on the outside.

The House did not meet again until October 17, 1705. The Governor sent in a message commending sundry measures to be enacted. By this time the Assembly was ready to lock horns with his Excellency, and to stand on its rights. It was accordingly resolved that it should be “full” before considering his suggestions, and a committee was appointed to wait on him and ask him to admit the three excluded members. He parried the issue, but the House would none of his evasions, and decided to do no business until those three men were admitted. The Governor wanted an appropriation for his support, and was compelled to yield and swear in the men, who took their seats October 26, 1705. The Lords of Trade disapproved of his course in a letter of April 20, 1705: “We think, your Lordship will do well to leave the Determination about Elections of Representatives to that House, and not to intermeddle therein otherwise than by Issuing of Writs for any new Election.”

Does this incident remind one of the “Broad Seal War,” arising out of the action of the Governor of New Jersey issuing his certificate of election to five men as Members of Congress, in 1838, who were really in the minority, on the ground that the returns from certain townships (which would have changed the result) were not before him in due season? Or does it in any way recall the attempt of ten members of the New Jersey Senate to assume to be a majority of the twenty-one members of that body, in 1894?

The Third Assembly, which met at Perth Amboy, April 5, 1707, was also hostile to the Governor. Two of the members of his Council—the pugnacious Lewis Morris and the imperturbable, hard-headed Samuel Jenings, a Quaker—actually resigned from that body in order to be elected to the Assembly, where they could the better harass his Excellency. The Governor had assumed the right to appoint the Clerk of the House, in the person of one William Anderson, who incurred their dislike, and they resolved to get rid of him. How? By the simple expedient of resolving themselves into a committee of the whole, wherein from day to day they discussed the public business, and figuratively “cussed” the Governor. Of course, the committee had a right to choose its own clerk, and selected one of the members. Anderson did not like this, and insisted on his right and duty to sit with them. He imprudently admitted “y^t 226he was Sworn to discover Debates y^t were dangerous to y^e Goverm^t, & y^t he did not know but y^e Comittee were going to have such Debates, & y^rfore did turn him out.” The chairman promptly caught him on this indiscretion, and exclaimed, “Then you suppose we are going to have such Debates?” “It looks like it,” replied the clerk. The committee indignantly resolved that his refusal to withdraw from the committee of the whole was a “high Contempt, & a great Interruption of y^e public Affairs of the Province,” and that his words were a “Misdemeanor & a scandalous Reflection upon y^e Members of this House.” Here was a new grievance whereof to complain to the Governor, and in order to give him time to think it over the House adjourned for a week, and then sent a committee to ask him to appoint another clerk, who should be “a Residenter of this Province.” It may be readily imagined that the Governor was loth to lose the services of so faithful a henchman, but he was anxious for another appropriation and was obliged to give way, and named a new clerk. How impatient he must have been to get that Assembly “off his hands!” Have there not been Governors, yea, even Presidents, similarly embarrassed within our own recollection?

Now the Assembly had another rod in pickle for the Governor. It was whispered about that a fund had been raised to bribe him to favor certain measures in the interest of the Proprietors, and that many citizens had been virtually compelled to contribute toward this fund, under threats of serious inconvenience in various ways. The House determined to investigate these rumors, and sent out subpœnas for a large number of witnesses. One of the parties implicated was Capt. John Bowne, a member from Monmouth County. He was a man of resources, and when a certain witness came to town to testify against him he had the man arrested on a capias in a civil suit and sent to jail, where he was detained, all bail being refused. Whereupon the House (April 30, 1707) promptly expelled Bowne for “a Contempt and a breach of the privileges of this House,” nem. con. They moved more quickly in those days than even in this modern era of hustle.

The Governor’s exclusion of three members-elect from their seats was still a sore grievance to the House, and finally that body expressed itself in language the good sense and dignity of which excuse its eccentric orthography:

“We are too Sensably touched with that procedure not to know what must be the unavoydable Consequences of the Governor’s refusing to 227Sweare which of the Members of an Assembly he thinks fitt; but to take upon himselfe the power of Judging of the qualifications of Assemblymen, and to keep them out of the house (as the Governour did the afores^d three members nigh Eleven Months till he was satisfied in that point) after the house had declared them qualified, is so great a violation of the Lyberties of the people, So great a breach of the privileges of the house of Representatives, So much an assuring to himselfe a negative voyce to the freeholders Election of their Representatives, that the Governour is Intreated to pardon us if this is a Different treatment from what he expected; It is not the Effects of passionate heats or the Transports of Vindictive Tempers, but the Serious Resentments of a House of Representatives For a Notorious violation of the liberties of the people to whom they could not be just nor answer the trust reposed in them Should they declyne letting the Governor know they are Extremely Dissatisfied at so unkind a treatment Especially when its Causes and Effects Conspire to render it so disagreeable.”

Lord John Lovelace having succeeded Lord Cornbury as Governor of New Jersey, ordered an election for a new Assembly, which met at Perth Amboy March 3, 1708–9. They were not willing to forgive and forget, any more than are modern partisans. A fulsome address to the Queen had been adopted in 1707 by the gentlemen of the Council, praising Lord Cornbury, and assailing the House, and particularly Lewis Morris and Samuel Jenings, two of its members. The Assembly had got wind of this document, and now requested a copy from the new Governor, who caused it to be furnished to them and it was treasured up for future use.

The wheels of legislation rolled smoothly along for several weeks. There was a sudden jolt, however, on June 11, 1709, when the Council had the temerity to appoint a committee to inspect the journal of the House. The latter body at once retorted in kind, by appointing a committee to inspect the journal of the Council, and desired them to send their journal to the committee that afternoon! The Council of course objected, urging that their proceedings were secret; but the House insisted, and desired to have the journal sent down at seven o’clock the next morning.

And that was the last that was heard of either house attempting to “inspect” the minutes of the other. The Assembly—the representatives of the people—had again triumphantly asserted and maintained their independence.

228The Fifth Assembly, which met and organized December 1, 1709, had a number of contested elections before it, which were in general decided in favor of the sitting members. The business of the session proceeded steadily and with unusual monotony until January 2, 1710, when it was enlivened by this incident: A certain bill having been referred to a committee, Mr. Lawrence, one of the members, reported that “they had blotted out the whole of the bill, except the title, which he thought was the best amendment they could make to it.” This seemed to be quite a joke, until the chairman complained that while the committee were discussing the measure Mr. Lawrence “Did contrary to his Consent blot out & Cancell the s^d bill and had left nothing remaining Except the title. And that M^r Gershom Mott another of the s^d Committee forcibly detained him when he would have departed the room whilst M^r Lawrence was blotting and Cancelling some part of the said Bill.” The House voted that the action of Messrs. Lawrence and Mott was a contempt, and ordered them to be brought before the bar “and there ask forgiveness, with an acknowledgement of the favour of the H^os that they were not Expelld the H^os & rendered uncapable for ever Serving in this H^os againe & other punish^mts which this H^os might inflict. And that they promise for the Future to behave themselves as becomes Members of this H^os.” The two practical jokers made the required amende and were allowed to resume their seats.

There was another break in the tedium of the session on January 5, when “M^r Sharp Complained that Cap^t George Duncan this morning, Early had called him out privately & drew his Sword upon him unawares he being unarmed, & made at him with his drawn Sword, upon which the said Sharp fled & was pursued by the s^d Cap^t Duncan who hee believes had a designe to kill him.

Capt. Duncan was ordered into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and to be kept disarmed until further orders. There he was detained for six days, when, being apparently both sober and sorry, and having asked Mr. Sharp’s forgiveness, he was brought before the House, made his apologies all around and “promised to behave himself for the future as becom’s a Loyall Subject and a good member of this House,” and was allowed to take his seat.

The Assembly elected in 1716 was violently rent by factions for and against the impatient and impetuous Governor Robert Hunter. Col. Daniel Coxe, who had served for several years in the Council, was 229removed at Hunter’s request, and forthwith set about getting even. To that end he secured his election to the Assembly in 1714, having cleverly manipulated the “Swedish vote” on his immense paternal estates in the southern part of the Province. He was again chosen in February, 1716, from both Gloucester County and the town of Salem, although Sheriff William Harrison, of Gloucester, was accused of resorting to sharp practice to secure his defeat, by removing the polls several miles from the usual place of holding the election. Coxe declared to serve for Gloucester, and being chosen Speaker on April 4, lodged a complaint against Harrison, had him arraigned at the bar of the House, and by order of that body publicly reprimanded him. Governor Hunter was intensely disappointed at the result of the election, and prorogued the Assembly until May 7. On that day the members in opposition stayed away, to prevent a quorum, but after two weeks the friends of the Governor managed to get together thirteen members—a bare majority,—and elected John Kinsey Speaker in the absence of Coxe, and then proceeded to expel Coxe and his whole party for non-attendance, and moreover declared them incapable forever of sitting in that body. Several of them were re-elected, nevertheless, and were gently but firmly again expelled.

I might speak of the action of the West Jersey Assembly in 1685–6, when they “declared to y^e Governor y^t officers of State & Trust belong to them to nominate and appoint.” And to that other assertion of their independence when they refused to recognize the course of the Proprietors in appointing John Tatham as Governor. Even in the opening days of the Revolution, when the friends of the new government were welded by the force of circumstances into a harmonious body, strongly disposed to uphold the patriotic Governor, William Livingston, they nevertheless enunciated an important construction of the constitution, in 1778, in declaring void a patent granted by him, incorporating a church, after the manner of his Royal predecessors, and asserting that “the power of granting patents and charters of incorporation, under the present constitution, is vested solely in the Legislature of the State.”

Something has been said in this paper of the scandalous conduct of elections. It is gratifying to find a popular reaction as early as 1738, at least in Quaker Burlington, where, though the election was so vigorously contested as to require three days to conclude the polling, it was, notwithstanding, managed “in such a candid and peaceable Manner,” according to a newspaper of the day, “as gave no Occasion of Reflection to each other, nor was there any reaping of Characters, or using of Canes in a 230Hostile Manner on one another, being sensible that such a Practice is inconsistent with the Freedom which ought to Subsist in our Elections.” The inference is irresistible that the conduct of this canvass was in violent contrast with the usual practices.

I might also mention the passage of an act by the Legislature seventy years or so ago, providing for an increase in the membership of the Supreme Court, and then the appointment by the same Legislature of one of its own members to the office thus created! The appointee was an honor to the Bench, and ranked then and for thirty years afterwards as one of the most distinguished men in the land. But what would be thought of such a procedure to-day?

And speaking of courts, I do not recall anything in recent times to match the daring of the Monmouth County people, who on March 25, 1701, captured the Governor of East Jersey, two of his Councillors and two of his Justices, who were holding court for the trial of a townsman on a charge of piracy, he having confessed that he had been on a voyage with the famous Captain William Kidd, “as he sailed, as he sailed.” The people would not “stand for” judicial interference in a little thing like that, which brought plenty of “Arabian gold” to our coasts, and so, with grim humor and determination, they kept the Governor and his Court of Sessions, together with the Attorney-General and the Secretary of the Province, in close confinement for four days. As nothing further is said about the matter it is not unlikely that the prisoners were compelled to promise immunity to their captors before being released.

chuckled Hosea Biglow in self-satisfied complacency. But from the few instances cited it is quite apparent that our honored forefathers, could they “revisit the pale glimpses of the moon,” would have little to learn from the modern “Boss” in the way of political audacity, chicanery or finesse.

the modern politician is much the same as his predecessor of two centuries ago. But in fact there has been a steady improvement in political methods. What appears to have been common in New Jersey in the early days of the eighteenth century—such as turning a Legislative minority into a majority—is so exceptional to-day as to excite general surprise, and more or less genuine indignation. In that State ten years ago it caused a political revolution.

231The golden age of American politics does not lie in the past. It looms up brightly in the future.

All the patriots, all the statesmen who have ever lived in our land, are by no means dead. To-day there are more with us than ever. Perhaps when they have left this sublunary sphere as long as have Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Clay and Benton—nomina clara et venerabilia!—future generations looking back upon the eminent men of this day, through the haze of a century, may see our contemporaries surrounded by as effulgent a glamour as that which to our eyes enshrines the worthies who guided the first steps of the Nation along the paths of sure and permanent progress. Let us have faith in the Republic, and in our present leaders, following where they lead aright, and leaving them when they go astray; remembering the golden rule in government, embodied in those matchless words:

“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

When the time comes that our people shall fully live up to that immortal Declaration we shall see before us and within reach the iridescent rainbow of our hopes, the harbinger of tranquility after the storms of past conflicts; then we shall have attained indeed in our political system and practices to the “golden age.”

In April, 1905, after the adjournment of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, started on a tour of the country. On Thursday, October 15, 1789, George Washington, President of the United States, Congress having adjourned, started on a tour of the New England States. The contrasts brought out by the two journeys are so striking that it may be of interest to recall the earlier tour, and some of the conditions under which it was made. President Roosevelt began his trip in the cab of a locomotive. President Washington started in his private coach, with much ceremony, attended by six servants. President Roosevelt travelled thousands of miles to Colorado and Texas, visiting territory, the existence of which was not even dreamed of in 1789. Washington went as far from New York as Portsmouth, N. H., and required a month in which to cover the distance between the two cities. But it is not so much the outward changes in conditions as the attitude of the people which is, after all, of the chief interest. The fiction of the “good old days” is so strongly intrenched in our minds that it is very difficult to break away from it, yet the absence of bitterness to-day in the spirit of the public toward the chief magistrate is no less marked a change than the revolution in physical conditions. President Roosevelt was followed on his journey by the good will of all the people. There might be a sly hit, now and then, at his strenuous bear-hunting, rough-riding proclivities, but the attitude of the people as a whole was respectful and sympathetic. How the different classes of the people felt toward Washington, together with some descriptive hints about his journey, I have endeavored to set forth in the following letters, all drawn from historic sources, which I suppose to have been written by the following imaginary personages:—

Dorothy Coolidge of Boston, a society girl, a friend and former playmate of John Adams.

233The first letter is addressed to William Armstrong of Pittsfield, and is written by Peter Colton.

It is going on a Year since I have writ a Letter to you, but you know I have not forgot the man that saved my Life at Monmouth, and I hope you have not forgot Yr old Sargeant of Co A. I hear you are growing prosperous, and I am glad to hear it. I take my pen in hand to tell you of the Visit w’ch our old General has made to Springfield. I thank the Lord that these old Eyes has seen him once more before I die. I knew he w’ld not stop in our Town, & so I harnessed up the old horse and took my ten year old boy & started to Springf’ld. After I had bought some Codfish & molases, I tied up my horse in the First Meeting House Sheds & waited by Zenas Parsonses Tavern. The General was late, it having rained hard in the Morning, and he did not reach town till nearly Four. There was a crowd around the Tavern Steps, but no great Cheers when the General stepped out of his Handsome Coach. There was several Prominent Gentlemen to meet him, and Zenas, he was a-rubbing his hands and a-bowing, with all the servants behind him. The boys took the Horses around to the stables, & the General, he started to go in, when he sees me standing by the door. What do you suppose he did? There come over his face one of them smiles of his, like the sun breaking through the clouds on a wintry day, & he steps up and shakes my hand & he says, Why here’s my old Sargeant. And is this your Boy? a Fine lad, says he, what is his Name? George Washington Colton, says I as proud as a Peacock. He laughs, and pulls out a Silver Dollar, and gives it to the Boy & it will be handed down to his Great grand children, if he has any. Then the General says, Come up in the Evening, says he, & sit with me and the other Gentlemen. Thank you Sir, says I, saluting, I will, as soon as milking, and then he went into the Tavern, for some of the fine Gentlemen was getting quite impatient, seeing him stand talking so long with a plain farmer like me. And yet there is some Sneaks who ought to be on the gallows, that says that George Washington is cold and haughtey, and has no heed for the common People. My paper is used up, so no more at present from.

The second letter is from Enoch Day, proprietor of a general store in West Springfield, to Joseph Mugridge, merchant, of Medford.

COUSIN JOSEPH:—It is some time since I have seen you, & I hope that your business is florishing, and that you & Cousin Elizabeth, and little Betty are well. I would be getting on prety well if these blustering returned Soldiers had any thing but their filthy Continental Money to pay with. I had one put in Jail the other day, 234old Job Smith, up on the Northampton Road. He came down from his High Horse, after I got the Sheriff on his back & began to sniffle & whine, and talk about a sick Wife, & how he had been wounded at Trenton. I tell you, Joseph, it is our turn now, & we have gott these bare footted heros on the Hip. That white livered Sneak & Coward, G. Washington, was in Springfield, yesterday. A lot of Fools dressed up in their best, and went over the river to see him. I hear he stopped at Zene Parsons’ Tavern, and rode in a fine Coach, with four Horses, and a whole company of Lackeys to bend & crouch & lick his Boots. He is more like a King than a president, and they say he grows wors every day. I hear he has already overdrawed his salary, & has stole $4,000, and I can well believe it. What any one can see to worship in that man, I cannot understand. He is treacherous in private Friendship, a hypocrite in public life, and the World will be puzzled to know whether he is an Apostate or an Imposter, whether he has abandoned his principles or whether he ever had any. Posterity will say that the Mask of political hypocricy has been worn by Caesar, by Cromwell, and by Washington. This journey he is taking is to make political Capital. He wants a second Term in Office, & he is catering to the vote of New England. He is an aristocrat, a Monocrat, an Anglomaniac, & an American Caesar. He ought to be the Servant of the People, but he wants them to bow & treat him like a little King. We had one odious King George, & now we are burdened with another. He is not the father, but the Stepfather of the Country. A friend of mine in New York, tells me for a fact, that this man comitted murder in his youth, & you have doubtless heard of those letters of his which have been found, that prove beyond the shadow of a Doubt, that this man, who is hailed as the Saviour of the Country, was really a Coward, that he was at heart as much of a Traitor as Benedict Arnold, only he lacked Arnold’s Boldness & Courage to carry it out. I have just received a Pamphlet written by one Valerius, which ought to be scattered abroad as a patriotic Document. I will copy one particularly good paragraph for you.

“With the Constitution in one hand, and the Word of God in the other, George Washington swore to defend a republican form of government, which abhors the insidious machinery of royal imposture. Has he done so? What have been the fruits of this solemn oath? The seclusion of a monk, and the supercilious distance of a tyrant. Old habits have been on a sudden thrown away. Time was, when he more than any other, indulged the manly walk and rode the generous steed. Now to behold him afoot or on horseback, is the subject of remark. The concealing carriage drawn by supernumerary horses, expresses the will of the President, and defies the will of the people. He receives visits. He returns none. Are these Republican virtues? Do they command our esteem?”

These words, dear cousin, filled with virtuous indignation, yet so elegantly expressed, are no doubt your sentiments as well as mine. Some of our West Springfield people, I am glad to say, have shown much spirit in this matter. The last 235time an attempt was made to celebrate the birthday of this odious tyrant, the swabs were stolen from the cannon, so that no salute could be fired. It will be a happy day for the Country, when G. Washington, Charlatan, political Trickster, Apostate, and Coward, is removed from our midst.

P. S. The last Rum you sent was of Prime quality. If you get any more bargains in those slightly damaged Blankets from England, wch can be sold for new, remember yr loving Cousin.

The next letter is from John Adams, to his friend and former playmate, Dorothy Coolidge of Boston.

I know that I ought not to write to you again this week, but my clients are few, and time hangs heavily on my hands, out here in the backwoods. You ask me if there are no handsome Springfield girls to take my attention, and keep me from being lonely. There are some very decent-looking young ladies, whom I see when I attend divine worship in the First Church, but you know very well why I do not care to cultivate their acquaintance. There is only One—no, I will not break my promise which I made, not to propose for your hand again for six months, but you know what I mean. I am going to tell you about the visit which that noble Patriot & Friend of Mankind, President George Washington, has just made to Springfield. He was here yesterday. About four o’clock his coach came up the Main street, horses at a smart trot, and drew up with a flourish in front of Zenas Parson’s Tavern. There was a small crowd, and three cheers were give as the President stepped from his coach, but no great enthusiasm, for I am bound to say that Springfield is an anti-Federalist town, and there is already much grumbling about the government. The general remained in the tavern but a short time, when he came out, and mounting a horse set out with several officers up the Boston road, to visit the Government Stores. I learn that he was well satisfied with the location and the improvements, and predicts that there will be here one day great manufactories and warehouses for the making and storing of Munitions of War. After supper he sat for a couple of hours, until ten o’clock, with a company of gentlemen in the great room of the Tavern, before a roaring fire, for the nights are chill. I was invited, no doubt on my father’s account, for whom the General inquired kindly. There were, among others in the company, Col Worthington, Col Williams, Adjt. General of the State, Gen William Shepard, Mr Lyman, and many other respectable gentlemen of the Town. I shall never forget that evening. His Excellency talked more freely than is his wont. He is loth to speak of his own achievements, but at the urgent solicitation of Col Williams he told of his part in the Trenton campaign. He gave great praise to our Massachusetts men, particularly to the Marblehead fishermen, who ferried the army, men, horses and guns, 236across the river, amid the floating ice. I can very well see, Dorothy, how some men can worship him and others hate him. He is a gentleman, an aristocrat, if you please, by nature; proud, self-contained, refined in every sense of the word. Added to that he is afflicted—I think that is the right word—with an abnormal shyness and reserve. His nature suddenly draws in upon itself, leaving him silent, diffident, almost glum. He cannot speak at such times. His lips close in a firm line; he looks like a marble statue. This mood is what some men mistake for hauteur, pride, arrogance. They call him Caesar, because he does not smirk and grin, and slap every country Tom and Jerry on the back. And yet, beneath that cold exterior, there is a nature which can be as warm and as tender as Spring. Once or twice during the evening he laughed as heartily as any one. I am convinced that the reserve and apparent exclusiveness, which seems so offensive to some, is partly a natural dignity, a respect for his position, and partly a disposition which he cannot help.

But there is a quality about him which only the most superficial observer can fail to notice. The sense of it grew upon me as I sat there and watched the play of his features in the firelight. Dorothy, he is a great man, the greatest, perhaps, that our country will ever see. He is cast in the heroic mold. He belongs in the company of the elect of all the ages. Only once in centuries does Nature form such a man, and then, like Caesar and Cromwell, he must be misunderstood, because he walks in a different atmosphere from the common throng. When I was in college I went on a hunting trip in the New Hampshire wilderness. Away up there in the Northland, suddenly, from a hilltop, I saw that splendid mountain peak, which has just been rightly named Washington. Gloriously, above its fellows, it soared into the sunset sky, remote, inaccessible, companion of the stars, yet rooted in mother earth, with running stream and birds and flowers about its base. That is our Washington, and such he must ever be. Once he alluded to the slanders and vituperations, which cannot but annoy him. He spoke in a voice which had more of sadness than anger in it. “These attacks,” he said, “are outrages on common decency. But I have a consolation within that no earthly effort can deprive me of, and that is, that neither ambition nor interested motives have influenced my conduct. The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed, can never reach the most vulnerable part of me, though while I am up as a mark they will be continually aimed.” The truth is, Dorothy, his public life is one continual martyrdom and self-sacrifice. He does not care for public life. He loves his farm on the Potomac—his horses and his dogs, his tobacco and his wheat, and he would be happier there than in any office which the people can give him. This talk about his being unrepublican is absurd. No man could be more ardently republican. He went into the war from pure sentiment and love of the country. He would have fought in the ranks, if his place had not been in the saddle. He believes, as every man must, in a strong central government, but monarchial institutions he abhors.

237At the stroke of ten he arose, and we stood and remained standing as he bade us a gracious good-night and left the room. There was no laughter and loud talking as we went away. A spell seemed to be upon us, the spell of his dignity and nobility and greatness. This morning at seven he started for Boston. May God go with him.

I must say good-night, Dorothy. I wish I could see you. Could you not write more often than once a week? It is very lonely here, but Springfield is really a lovely place. The river, as it comes sweeping down from the hills, is beautiful. There is a very pretty society here for a small town, and some assemblies. I think you love the country. I think that a girl, even one who had been brought up in Boston, might under certain circumstances be happy here. Good-night, again, and Farewell.

You needn’t abuse me so, sir, because I have not written to you for more than two Weeks. How could I write, with the President here, & so many Balls and Assemblies. Besides, I write quite as often as is good for you. I had thought of not writing any more to you, sir. I am afraid that it may interfere with yr important Business. But I won’t stop—just yet. I have seen yr Paragon, George Washington. He reached here on Saturday after he was in Springfield, & it was a Gala-day for Boston. There was a great Procession, Militia, marching very straight and fine, trades-people, each guild with the Device of its Craft, and many Gentlemen on horseback. Near the State-house was a triumphal Arch, built acrost the street. On one side were the words, “The Man Who Unites All Hearts.” On the Other “To Columbia’s Favorite Son.” On the top of the Arch there was a stuffed Eagle. The school children were drawn up in line, & saluted by rolling their writing quills in their hands. The General rode a splendid white Horse, and looked every inch the hero, in his blue and buff uniform. He held his Hat in his hand, and bowed slightly to left and right. He went into the State-house, and came out on the Balcony. Then the great throng below went wild with Enthusiasm. By and by, when they could be heard, a select Choir sang an Ode written for the occasion.

On Sunday morning his Excellency went to Church & sat in the Pew behind ours. I had a new hat, which I think is very becoming. It has a large brim, a gauze crown, & a broad bow with long ends at the back, and it was trimmed with three Ostrich Feathers. What do you suppose that ridiculous old anti-Federalist governor Hancock did? He refused to call on the President, saying that it was the President’s place to call upon his High Mightiness. The People were so angry, that threats of violence were heard. You know that the President is stopping at 238the Widow Ingersoll’s just opposite our house. Well, I was looking out, when, about two o’clock, the Governor’s Coach drew up. His gouty legs were done up in red Flannel & his lackeys carried him in, to see the President. Later the President went and drank tea with him and Mrs Hancock. I wouldn’t have returned such a call. My father was very much pleased. He said that settled one thing forever, that the National Government was supreme, and the States must take second place.

Wednesday night was the Assembly. I had a lovely pink Silk Gown, made new for the great occasion, & I wore as all the young ladies did, a broad white Satin sash, with G. W. in gold letters, with a laurel Wreath around them. On one end of the sash was painted an American Eagle, & on the other a Fleur-de-lis. I saw yr honored Mother, and she was very gracious to me. She looked very Handsome & Stately, in a beautiful Velvit gown, and the sash like ours, only black with gold letters and Devices.

I had the honor of a Dance with his Excellency, and he was pleased to be most charming in his Manner. He complimented my appearance, and said that he had found our New England ladies quite as Handsome as those in the South. I felt more complimented when he talked with me about public Affairs here, & I know that I blushed when he praised my knowledge of Politics. I admired yr description of him, & I know it is true. I could feel his nobility and greatness of Soul. Oh, Jack, how can anyone say such horrid things of him, when he is so Pure, so High minded, when he is the Saviour of our Country. When he stood there on the balcony of the State-house, with everybody cheering and shouting, I could not help thinking of him as he was at Valley Forge, cold & hungry, sacrificing everything for his soldiers, and the tears of gratitude & affection came into my eyes. Well, he is gone, and I pray he may return safely Home. I suppose he will not go through Springfield on his way back. I asked him about Springfield, and he said it was no great Town, but Lovely in situation, and that Zenas Parson’s Tavern was a good one. I think—I am not sure—but perhaps, under certain circumstances, a city girl might be happy in the country. But this letter is too long. I meant to punish you by making it short. You need not expect another for at least a Month. This is to be a very gay winter, & I doubt not, I shall be much sought after, so I shall have small time to write to my friends in the Country.

The careful historical student may find some anachronisms in these letters, yet in the main they give a true account of the time “when Washington came to Springfield,” and rode, with his coach and four along the New England highways, in the bright autumn weather.

[We are indebted to Mr. Herbert W. Kimball, of Boston, Registrar of the Massachusetts S. A. R., for the two accounts of the “shot heard round the world.” The first was prepared for the Boston News-Letter, in 1826, and the second, although written many years ago, was not printed until 1896, and then only in a newspaper, hence will probably be as new to most of our readers as it is to the Editor. The bill of Dr. Fisk has never been published or printed in any form, and is especially interesting as showing, what we believe has not been stated by any writer, that several of the British wounded who were left behind, were cared for by the patriots. The detailed list of the killed and wounded of the patriots was also prepared especially for the S. A. R., and published in their Register, a few years ago.—ED.]

Between the hours of 12 and 1, on the 19th April, 1775, news was received at Lexington by express from the Hon. Joseph Warren, at Boston, that a large body of King’s troops, supposed to be about 1200 or 1500 were embarked in boats from Boston, and gone over to land on Lechmere Point (now East Cambridge) probably to seize the military stores at Concord.

On receipt of this intelligence, signal guns were fired, the bell rung, and the militia of the town were ordered to meet at the usual place of parade. About the same time two persons were sent express to Cambridge to gain intelligence and watch the route of the enemy.

The Lexington train band, or militia, and the alarm men, consisting of the aged and others exempted from military duty, except in case of alarm, met according to order, on the commons near the meetinghouse, and waited the return of the messengers. There were present when the roll was called about 120 militia and alarm men together. Between three and four A. M., one of the messengers returned, saying there was no appearance of troops neither on the Cambridge or the Charlestown roads. Put off their guard by this information, and the night being chilly and uncomfortable on the parade ground, the privates were dismissed, to appear again at the beat of drum. Some, who resided in the neighborhood, went to their homes, others to the public house at the east corner of the common. Messrs. Hancock and Adams had been persuaded to depart from the town, as the seizure of their persons was probably one object of the enemy. The return of the second messenger was anxiously awaited by the officers who had continued at their posts, 240but he had been taken prisoner by the enemy, as every other person had been who passed up or down the road; so that, after every precaution, the British troops were actually in the town, and upon a quick march towards the place of parade, within half an hour after the company was dismissed. The commanding officer, however, thought it proper to muster them in the very face of the enemy; alarm guns were accordingly fired and the drum beat to arms about 4:30 o’clock. Part of the company, to the number of about sixty, were soon on the parade; others were hastening towards it, when the attack was made. The Lexington company, as they hastily formed on the rising ground to the north of the meetinghouse, were placed in two ranks, ordered to load with ball, and as previously agreed, were determined to offer no aggression, but to repel it if offered by the British.

The British van, commanded by Major Pitcairn, had thus stolen upon the militia unawares, while temporarily dismissed, and it was in sight of the formidable body that the little band of Americans was forming their ranks when the enemy halted at about twelve rods distance. Major Pitcairn with his aids, hastily rode up the Bedford road to right of the meetinghouse, and returned by the Concord road to the left; and having thus reconnoitered this handful of men, drew his pistol and cried: “Disperse, Rebels; throw down your arms and disperse,” gave orders to fire, and fired his own pistol. The soldiers at the same time ran up huzzaing, and fired, at first some scattering guns, which were immediately followed by a general discharge, which did no injury, excepting slightly wounding one man; and the fire was not returned; but the second discharge was fatal to several Americans. They returned the fire, as far as the confusion in their ranks from the number of killed or wounded would permit. The militia dispersed immediately after firing, but were shot at as they retreated. The British troops then resumed their march to Concord.

This story of the Concord fight is taken from the original manuscript of Thaddeus Blood, of Concord, and was first published in the Boston Journal in 1896. He began as a minuteman, and later was a Lieutenant in Captain Moses Barnes’ company, Lieut.-Col. Pierce’s regiment, stationed part of the time in Rhode Island and part in Swanzey, as his own quaint phraseology puts its. He says:

On the morning of the 19th of April, 1775, about 2 o’clock in the morning, I was called out of bed by John Barrett, a Sergeant of the militia company to which I belonged (I was 20 years of age the 28th of May next following): I joined the company under Captain Nathan Barrett (afterwards Colonel), at the old court-house, about 3 o’clock, and was ordered to go to the Court House to draw ammunition. After the company had all drawn their ammunition we were paraded near the meetinghouse and I should suppose that there was 60 or 70 men in Capt. Barrett’s company, and that the whole of the militia and minute-men of Concord under arms that day was not less than 200. About 4 o’clock they were joined by two companies from Lincoln: the militia commanded by Capt. Pierce (afterwards Colonel) and the minute-men by Capt. William Smith—the venerable and honorable Samuel Hoar of Lincoln was one of his lieutenants—and were then formed, the minute-men on the right and Capt. Barrett’s on the left, and marched in order to the end of Meriam’s Hill, then so-called, and saw the British troops a-coming down Brooks’ Hill: the sun was arising and shined on their red coats and glis’ning arms. We retreated in order over the top of the hill to the Liberty pole erected on the heights opposite the meetinghouse, and made a halt; the main body of the British marched up in the road and a detachment followed us over the hill, and halted in half gun-shot of us, at the pole; we then marched over the burying-ground to the road and then over the bridge to Hunt’s Hill, or Punkataisett so called at that time, and were followed by two companies of the British. One company went up to destroy stores at Colonel James Barrett’s, and they tarried near the bridge; some of them went to Capt. David Brown’s, some to Mr Ephraim Butterick’s. About 9 o’clock we saw smoke rise at the Court House; it was proposed to march into town and were joined by 242Westford and Acton companies, and were drawn up west of where Colonel Jonas Butterick now lives. Colonel James Barrett rode along the line, and having consulted with the officers, shouted, not to fire first; then began their march—Robinson and Butterick led. Upon beginning to march the company of British formed first on the causeway in platoons: they then retreated over the bridge and took up three planks and formed, part in the road and part on each side; our men the same time marching in very good order along the road in double file. At that time an officer rode up, and a gun was fired. I saw where the ball threw up the water about the middle of the river; then a second and a third shot, and cry of fire, fire, was made from front to rear: the fire was almost simultaneous with the cry, and I think it was not more than two minutes, if so much, till the British run, and the fire ceased. Part of our men went over the bridge and myself among the rest, and part returned to the ground they had left. After the firing, every one appeared to be his own commander; it was thought best to go the east part of the town and take them as they came back. Each took his own station; for myself, I took my stand south of where Dr Minot then lived; when I saw the British coming from Concord, their right flank in the meadows, their left on the hill.

“When near the foot of the hill Col. Thompson of Billerica came up, with three or four hundred men, and there was heavy firing, but the distance so great that little injury was done on either side; at least I saw but one killed, and a number wounded.”

The rest of the story is more familiar to us—the steady, running fight, all the way, until Lord Percy’s welcome reinforcement saved the day—and the exhausted British detachment reached once more the sheltering lines of Boston, whence they had set out with so much confidence that early morning. Of the patriots, 49 were killed, 39 wounded and 5 missing. Of the British, 73 were killed, 174 wounded and 26 missing.

How to identify memorial trees has become an interesting question with the Washington authorities who have charge of the public grounds. While this city has no elm under which Washington took command of the army, and no oak that saved the charter of colonial liberties, it has not a few trees about which exceedingly interesting history gathers.

The Russo-American oak, planted a year ago, by President Roosevelt, assisted by Secretary Hitchcock, in the lawn near the west terrace of the White House, has a novel history. It is a lineal descendant of a native American oak, which overshadowed the old tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon. Acorns from this oak were sent by Charles Sumner, while a Senator, to the Czar of Russia. Secretary Hitchcock thus tells the rest of the story:

“While ambassador at the court of St. Petersburg I made inquiry with respect to the acorns that Charles Sumner, while Senator from Massachusetts, sent to the Czar, and I found that they had been planted on what is known as ‘Czarina Island,’ which is included in the superb surroundings of one of the palaces of his Majesty, near Peterhof, and there I found a beautiful oak with a tablet at its foot bearing a Russian inscription which reads: ‘The acorn planted here was taken from an oak which shades the tomb of the celebrated and never-to-be-forgotten Washington; is presented to his Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, as a sign of the greatest respect.—By an American.’

“I was fortunate at the time of my visit, which was in the fall of 1898, in finding a number of acorns on the ground. Gathering a handful I sent them home, and secured from the seed thus planted a few oak saplings, one of which I planted, with the permission of President Roosevelt, in the grounds of the White House, while another I planted near its grandparent, which is still in existence at Mount Vernon. Both of these young trees, I hope, will reach such age and strength as will, for years to come typify the continued friendship of the Governments and people of the United States and Russia.”

NAME	AGE	WHERE KILLED	TOWN FROM	WHERE BURIED
Ensign Robert Munroe	63	Lexington Common	Lexington	Lexington Common
Jonas Parker	53	„ „	„	„ „
Jonathan Harrington	30	„ „	„	„ „
Isaac Muzzy	31	Near Lexington Common	„	„ „
Samuel Hadley	29	„ „ „	„	„ „
John Brown	25	„ „ „	„	„ „
Asahel Porter		„ „ „	Woburn	Woburn
Capt. Isaac Davis	30	Concord Bridge	Acton	Acton Centre
Abner Hosmer	21	„ „	„	„ „
Capt. Jonathan Wilson	41	N’r Brooks’ Tav’n, Lincoln	Bedford	Bedford
Daniel Thompson	40	„ „ „ „	Woburn	Woburn
Nathaniel Wyman	25	„ „ „ „	Lexington	Old Cemetery, Lexington
Asahel Reed	22	„ Hartwell’s „ „	Sudbury	Sudbury Centre
James Hayward	25	Fiske’s Hill, Lexington	Acton	Acton Centre
Josiah Haynes	80	Concord Hill	Sudbury	Sudbury Centre
Jedediah Munroe	54	Lexington	Lexington	Old Cemetery, Lexington
John Raymond	44	N’r Munroe’s Tav’n, Lex.	„	„ „ „
Joseph Coolidge	45	East Lexington	Watert’wn	East Watertown
Henry Jacobs	22	Menotomy	Danvers	Danvers
Samuel Cook	33	„	„	„
Ebenezer Goldthwait	22	„	„	„
George Southwick	25	„	„	„
Benjamin Daland	25	„	„	„
Jotham Webb	22	„	„	„
Perley Putnam	21	„	„	„
Daniel Townsend	37	„	Lynn	Lynnfield
Reuben Kennison		„	Beverly	Danvers, Ryal Side
William Flint		„	Lynn	Menotomy, now Arl’gton
Thomas Hadley		„	„	„ „ „
Jason Russell	59	„	Menotomy	„ „ „
William Polly	30	Mill Pond, Op. Menotomy	Medford	Medford
Henry Putnam	70	Menotomy	„	„
Benjamin Peirce	37	„	Salem	Menotomy
Lieut. John Bacon	54	„	Needham	„
Sergt. Elisha Mills	40	„	„	Needham
Amos Mills	43	„	„	Menotomy
Natheniel Chamberlain	57	„	„	„
Jonathan Parker	28	„	Dedham	„
Elias Haven		„	Dover	„
Abednego Ramsdell	25	„	Lynn	„
Jabez Wyman	39	„	Menotomy	„
Jason Winship	45	„	„	„
Moses Richardson	53	Cambridge	Camb’dge	Cambridge
John Hicks	50	„	„	„
William Marcy		„	„	„
Isaac Gardner	49	„	Brooklyn	Brooklyn
James Miller	65	Charlestown	Cha’stown	Charlestown
Edward Barber	14	Charlestown Neck	„	„

A superb specimen of the Oriental plane tree (Platanus orientalis) 246originally planted in 1862, in the United States Botanic Garden by direction of Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, now forms one of the chief attractions of Lincoln Park. Having suffered from an overflow of the Potomac in 1870, which threatened its destruction, it was removed from the Botanic Garden to Lincoln Park, then an unimproved Government reservation. In 1872, when this park was improved with walks and ornamental plantings, a part of the plan of improvement adopted was the construction of an oval mound in the center, intended to form the site of a colossal statue of Abraham Lincoln, if an appropriation could be secured for that purpose. This tree was bare-stemmed, with a few small branches near the top, about eight feet from the original ground surface. The mound was made around it, and from this bare stem, which subsequently was covered with earth, it speedily sent out roots, and began a growth of phenomenal rapidity, which has continued till it is now over seventy feet in height, with a nearly equal spread of branches.

Trees as well as statuary may serve as monuments. In the parks and gardens of the cities of Europe there are many such trees. In Washington, the official home of our Presidents, and the temporary abiding place of so many distinguished statesmen and men of letters, exceptional opportunities have been afforded, and there are many trees notable for the historic interest attached to them.

In the grounds around the White House stands a stately American elm said to have been planted by President John Quincy Adams. It forms a conspicuous object, towering above the surrounding plantings on the mound to the southeast of the White House. An American elm was planted by President Hayes in March, 1878, near the west entrance of the north roadway approach to the White House. A sweet-gum tree was planted by President Harrison, in April, 1892, in the lawn northeast of the White House. A scarlet oak was planted by President McKinley, March, 1898, in the lawn west of the White House, bordering the walk now leading to the executive offices.

The Cameron elm, one of the old trees in the Capitol grounds, south of the south wing of the building, is made notable from the circumstance that Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania, while a member of the Senate Committee on Public Buildings, intervened in its behalf and prevented its destruction.

In the Botanic Garden are planted a large number of trees, memorials 247of men prominent in the Nation’s history. These trees are both evergreen and deciduous, and a number of them are splendid specimens. There is the Crittenden tree, an overcup oak, planted in 1863 by J. J. Crittenden, of Crittenden compromise fame. The acorns for this and a companion tree planted at the same time by Robert Mallory, a personal friend of Crittenden, were brought from Kentucky by them. Mr. Mallory’s tree was planted on what was, prior to its incorporation in the Botanic Garden, the towpath of the old Washington Canal.

The Garfield tree has this novel history: At the funeral ceremonies of President Garfield a small seedling branchlet of acacia was placed on his coffin by a member of the Masonic fraternity. After his burial this seedling plant was brought to Washington, and planted in its present location. Near this tree, on the opposite side of the walk, an acacia tree has been planted as a memorial to Albert Pike, for so many years the central figure of the Masonic fraternity in the United States. The Hoar and Evarts memorial trees are two handsome specimens of the cedar of Lebanon, planted by Senators Hoar and Evarts, close together. The Holman tree is a superb Crimean fir, planted about thirty-eight years ago by the Indiana economist, who is now almost forgotten. There are two Wahoo, or winged elm trees, planted by Lot M. Morrill and Justin S. Morrill during their terms of service in the United States Senate. These somewhat rare trees are now handsome specimens of the garden.

A Chinese oak with a novel history grows near by; many years ago a friend of Charles A. Dana, travelling in China, picked up a number of acorns under a tree growing by the grave of Confucius, and brought them to America for Mr. Dana, who planted them in his grounds. This tree was grown from one of these acorns.

There are also a number of other memorial trees planted in these grounds; among the most notable are a British oak commemorating the settlement of the Alabama claims, and two American elms, seedlings from the Washington elm growing at Cambridge. And there are many more.

LETTER FROM BENJAMIN HAWKINS TO GOVERNOR CASWELL

[Benjamin Hawkins was a member of the Continental Congress, and interpreter for Washington with the French officers. (Washington is said to have greatly regretted the necessity for an interpreter, as it failed to bring the French officers in proper touch with the commander.) The letter is dated at “Bath” presumably in North Carolina, as the writer refers to “this state.” It is addressed to Richard Caswell, the Governor of North Carolina. The writer was born in N. C. in 1754, and died in Georgia, 1816. A Princeton graduate, and proficient in modern languages, his knowledge of French made him very useful to Washington. In 1780 he was commissioned to buy arms abroad. These he shipped in a vessel belonging to John Stanly a merchant of New Berne. After the Revolution he became one of the Senators from N. C. In 1797 he was Indian Superintendent, over all the tribes south of the Ohio, and held this office through several administrations. Although rich he left home to establish a settlement and manufactory in the Creek Nation, near what is now Hawkinsville, Ga. (named in his honor).]

I have the pleasure of informing your excellency of my arrival here with some muskets for this State; I ship’d eight hundred and seventy-eight stand from St. Eustatius, I shall land five hundred stand at Washington—the remainder which come in another bottom, will be at Edenton.

I could not procure anything on the faith of the State, or by barter for provisions or tobacco as was expected, they were taught to believe in the West Indies that a bushel of salt would purchase one hundred weight of tobacco, and that two and one-half, a barrel of pork. While they entertain this idea (salt being of little value there) it will be impossible to barter for more valuable articles, the exchange to be in this State, as was suggested by some gentlemen in the assembly. The price of tobacco had fallen in the West Indies about the time of my arrival there, owing to the quantity just then imported from the continent—which with the advise of Mr. Governeur, the continental agent there determined me to reship the tobacco in Dutch bottoms to Europe, he undertook to do it, and advanced for six hundred of the arms—the remainder I purchased on my own credit on Interest for the State—the arms are very good and purchased at the reasonable price of five and five and a half pieces of eight per stand. Part of the tobacco I ship’d 249was damaged, which can only be accounted for either by the negligence of the inspector or the bad state of the warehouse where it was stored.

We were apprised of the sailing of the fleet from New York, which made me assiduous in geting all the arms I could in St. Eustatia as I well knew our situation. A large supply of arms and cloathing may be had by this from the West Indies provided we can make remittances—three thousand stand I am offered and one thousand suits of cloathing.

Should the present plan of importing necessaries still continue to be countenanced by the general assembly, I shall prepair to remit as much as possible, tho’ I doubt vessels cannot be procured—freighting at the present extravigant prices will not be so advantageous as purchasing. If the latter be practicable, I must draw on you for money—I will send you the price currant of articles for the West India market by the next opportunity.

A Continental brigantine was cut out from Saby by some British privateers tho’ opposed by the fire from the fort, she has been since demand(ed?) but refused—it was suggested that the Captain, —— Ashmead, and some of his men went into the fort and assisted in protecting their vessel, the answer of the governor of St. Kitts to the demand is humourous; he congratulated the governor of Saby ^[25] on the restoration of the island seized by the rebel Americans.

Part of the French fleet have arrived at Martinique, but we had no account of the Count, some supposed he had sailed for Europe others to South America.

We had various reports from Europe which as I recollect I send you—the Dutch have been repeatedly solicited to take part with Britain, they evade it as much as possible, it is said they have given as a reason that they did not think the present plans & intention of the British ministry to be to the interest either of Britain or her allies, but manifestly to their ruin and discredit, and therefore although they were and are at all times ready to act for the interest of great Britain, yet for the reasons before named they must now declare themselves neuter and protest against the proceedings of —— This is credited by some in St. Eustatia. They further report that the dutch Embassador has ben recalled from the British Court in consideration of a demand of some 250vessels carried into the Texel by John Paul Jones; the governor of St. Eustatius imagines that the Dutch will take part with Britain.

The grand convention will be held at Versailles in April—the King of Prussia & Empress of Russia have promised their mediation, the British fleet are in Torbay and do not expect to put to sea till April. John Paul Jones who sailed from Brest in a fifty gun ship with some frigates went north about and did infinite damage to the British vessels—he fell in with the convoy from Norway and took the Seraphis, a new fifty gun ship, and the Countess of Scarborough of 20—Jones engaged the Seraphis two hours, and the whole time they were so near that the guns touched the opposite vessel. Jones lost one hundred and Eighty two men, and Pearson 189. Jones’ ship sunk the next day and he went with his prizes into the Texel, there to refit them. Sir Joseph York demanded them, which was so strenuously opposed by the French minister that his demand was refused and repeatedly. Jones was received with every imaginable mark of respect by the Dutch.

I expect the pleasure of seeing your excellency within a few days—excuse the imperfection of my letter—I am with due respect—

[This letter, which was sold at auction in New York in May, came to light very opportunely for our article. Its existence was before unknown.—See article “Between Two Flags,” p. 203]

I wrote you on the 4th., the 15th., the 17th., & the 21st.,—on the 17th I sent a copy of my letter of the 4th. I now have before me yours of the 24th., by which it does not appear that you have received any of my Letters, this & the pretended Secrecy with which everything is conducted convinces me of what I have been long since suspicious, (viz) that you are in the hands of a very dishonest man—I once more enclose the copy of my letter of the 4th and again insist, that before you leave Havre, you see that every Bill is just, and that every thing has been conducted as it ought to be, for I freely own to you, I have lost all confidence in Eyries (?) You will then ask me why I have dealt with him at all for this Vessel. I answer at once, to get my Money out of his hands, but if he witholds anything from your knowledge quit him immediately. I have wrote directly to Eyries by this post, & am with due respect,

I have repeatedly told you that you cannot be permitted to cruise in the Channel, & were I to give you a Commission for that purpose it would be fatal to me, therefore urge no more on that subject—I once more inclose you the Orders I gave (on) the 4th and must insist that you see every thing done to your satisfaction or that you instantly tell Eyries you will have nothing to do in the affair.

WHAT DID WAYNE PLAN IN THIS ORDER?

Mad Anthony was not content with his success at Stony Point, but a short time after issued this order:

Dear Sir: You’ll please to order a detachment of one hundred and fifty men, with two days’ provisions, under the command of Col. Butler. I wish you to order Major Hull with him.

It is evident that the contemplated movement was not to be far away, as only two days’ provisions were called for. There was something to be performed in the secrecy of the night. Col. Butler was probably Col. Richard Butler, who was a capable officer of the 9th Pennsylvania. Major Hull was later Gen. Hull, of the War of 1812. Sackett had his home in the neighborhood near where Wayne was writing, and had been very active in civil life. He graduated at Yale, and was prominent in revolutionary committees. He brought to Fishkill the news of the Battle of Lexington, organized local patriotic meetings, and was associated with the leaders in that historic time. It seems that Wayne looked to him to give him some important aid where nothing was accomplished, because of some new turn for other action. Such are familiar to the soldier. Many soldiers were quartered in Fishkill, where those officers and men to be called must have been.

THE LAST VETERAN GONE

Hiram Cronk, the last survivor of the War of 1812, died at the age of 105, at his home in Oneida County, N. Y., May 15, and was given a public military funeral in New York City, May 18—the Society of the War of 1812 forming a part of the escort. The body lay in state over night at the City Hall—an honor never before shown to a private soldier—and on May 19 was interred in Cypress Hills Cemetery, Long Island.

g. MCPIKE—Have the ship registers been preserved, of arrivals of emigrants at port of Baltimore, Maryland, circa 1772, from Dublin, Ireland, and London, England? My ancestor, James McPike, of Scotch parentage, is said to have migrated from Dublin to Baltimore in 1772. His son, John McPike, was born at Wheeling, W. Va., 4th or 5th February, 1795. Is there any local evidence of that fact which is recorded in family Bible records?

All communications for this department (including genealogical publications for review) should be sent to William Prescott Greenlaw, address: Commonwealth Hotel, Bowdoin St., Boston, Mass.

[A limited number of queries will be inserted for subscribers free; to all others a charge of one cent per word (payable in stamps) will be made.]

16. a. BARTLETT—What was the maiden name of Abigail, wife of Richard Bartlett of Newbury? She died 1687.

b. CROSBY—Who were the parents of Jane Crosby of Rowley, who married, 1644, John Pickard of Rowley and died 1715.

c. HOBBS—Wanted, the parentage of Mary Hobbs of Newbury, who married, 1665, John Kent. She died 1703.

d. PEARSON—What was the maiden name of Dorcas, wife of John Pearson of Rowley? They were married about 1667.

e. RUST—Who were the parents of Mary Rust of Newbury or Ipswich, who married, 1680, John Kent of Newbury.

f. WHEELER—What was the maiden name of Rebecca, wife of Nathan Wheeler? He died 1741.

g. WHEELER—Who were the parents of Susanna Wheeler of Newbury, born 1730, died 1801, who married, 1749, William Coffin of Newbury.

h. WESTWOOD—What was the maiden name of Bridget, wife of William Westwood of Hartford and Hadley? He died 1639.

i. TYNG—Wanted, the maiden name of Mary, wife of Edward Tyng of Boston and Dunstable. He died 1681.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY WITH NOTES AND QUERIES, VOL. I, NO. 4, APRIL 1905 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

		PAGE
THE LEXINGTON MINUTEMAN		Frontispiece

PROGRESS OF DISCOVERY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (First Paper)	WARREN UPHAM	195
(Sec’y Minn. Historical Society)

BETWEEN TWO FLAGS	KATHERINE PRENCE	203

CIVIL WAR SKETCHES (First Paper) Confederate Finance in Alabama	WALTER L. FLEMING	214
(Prof. of History, West Va. University)

THE PATROL AT BARNEGAT (Poem MS.)	WALT WHITMAN	220

EARLY LEGISLATIVE TURMOILS IN NEW JERSEY	WILLIAM NELSON	221
(Sec’y N. J. Historical Society)

HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED POEM OF EDGAR ALLAN POE		231

WHEN WASHINGTON CAME TO SPRINGFIELD	REV. NEWTON M. HALL	232

LEXINGTON AND CONCORD (Dr. Fisk’s Bill.)	HERBERT W. KIMBALL (Registrar, Mass. S. A. R.)	239

THE DEAD OF PATRIOTS’ DAY		244

THE MEMORIAL TREES AT WASHINGTON		245

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
Letter from Benjamin Hawkins to Governor Caswell		248
Letter from Silas Deane to Capt. Joseph Hynson		251

MINOR TOPICS		252

GENEALOGY		253

Balance in Treasury, September 30, 1864	$3,713,959
Receipts, September 30, 1864 to May 24, 1865	3,776,188

Total	7,490,147
Disbursements, September 30, 1864 to May 24, 1865	6,698,853

Balance in Treasury	791,294

The balance was in funds as follows:

Checks on Bank of Mobile payable in Confederate notes	$ 11,440
Certificate of deposit, Bank of Mobile, payable in Confederate notes	1,330
Confederate and State notes in Treasury	517,889
State notes, change bills (legal shin plasters)	250,004
Notes of State banks and branches	358
Bank notes	424
Silver	337
Gold on hand	497
Gold on deposit in Northern banks	35

Balance	$ 791,294

The Province of Massachusetts, Debtor to Joseph Fisk, to going to Woburn to dress one of the King’s troops; travel three miles and dressing	£0	3s.	6d.
April 19, to dressing one of King’s troops at Mr. Buckman’s in Lexington; travel half a mile		2	0
April 20, to dressing seven of the King’s troops, at Mr Buckman’s in Lexington; two days at one shilling per day each	1	3	0
April 20, to going to Lincoln to Dress two of King’s troops; travel three miles		3	6
April 20, to going to Ebenezer Fisk’s to dress three of the King’s troops, two miles		3	6
April 23, to going to Cambridge to dress one of the King’s troops; travel five miles		4	0
April 26, to dressing one of the King’s troops three times, at Mr Buckman’s in s’d town		4	0
Lexington, June 6, 1775
Errors Excepted,
JOSEPH FISK.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The magazine of history with notes and queries, Vol. I, No. 4, April 1905

VOL. I NO. 4
THE
MAGAZINE OF HISTORY
WITH
NOTES AND QUERIES

CONTENTS

THE PROGRESS OF DISCOVERY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

I
THE VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI PAST THE MOUTHS OF THE MISSISSIPPI

BETWEEN TWO FLAGS.

I.

II.

CIVIL WAR SKETCHES.
CONFEDERATE FINANCE IN ALABAMA

BANKS AND BANKING

ISSUES OF BONDS AND NOTES

THE PATROL AT BARNEGAT

EARLY LEGISLATIVE TURMOILS IN NEW JERSEY

HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED POEM BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

WHEN WASHINGTON CAME TO SPRINGFIELD

LEXINGTON AND CONCORD

I

II

III
DR. FISK’S BILL

THE DEAD OF PATRIOTS’ DAY ^[23]
APRIL 19, 1775 ^[24]

THE MEMORIAL TREES AT WASHINGTON

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

LETTER FROM BENJAMIN HAWKINS TO GOVERNOR CASWELL

LETTER FROM SILAS DEANE TO CAPT. JOSEPH HYNSON.

MINOR TOPICS

WHAT DID WAYNE PLAN IN THIS ORDER?

THE LAST VETERAN GONE

QUERY

GENEALOGICAL

ENGLISH PEDIGREE OF THE FIRST GABRIEL LUDLOW, OF NEW YORK

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The magazine of history with notes and queries, Vol. I, No. 4, April 1905

VOL. I NO. 4 THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY WITH NOTES AND QUERIES

CONTENTS

THE PROGRESS OF DISCOVERY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

I THE VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI PAST THE MOUTHS OF THE MISSISSIPPI

BETWEEN TWO FLAGS.

I.

II.

CIVIL WAR SKETCHES. CONFEDERATE FINANCE IN ALABAMA

BANKS AND BANKING

ISSUES OF BONDS AND NOTES

THE PATROL AT BARNEGAT

EARLY LEGISLATIVE TURMOILS IN NEW JERSEY

HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED POEM BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

WHEN WASHINGTON CAME TO SPRINGFIELD

LEXINGTON AND CONCORD

I

II

III DR. FISK’S BILL

THE DEAD OF PATRIOTS’ DAY[23] APRIL 19, 1775[24]

THE MEMORIAL TREES AT WASHINGTON

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

LETTER FROM BENJAMIN HAWKINS TO GOVERNOR CASWELL

LETTER FROM SILAS DEANE TO CAPT. JOSEPH HYNSON.

MINOR TOPICS

WHAT DID WAYNE PLAN IN THIS ORDER?

THE LAST VETERAN GONE

QUERY

GENEALOGICAL

ENGLISH PEDIGREE OF THE FIRST GABRIEL LUDLOW, OF NEW YORK

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

VOL. I NO. 4
THE
MAGAZINE OF HISTORY
WITH
NOTES AND QUERIES

I
THE VOYAGE OF VESPUCCI PAST THE MOUTHS OF THE MISSISSIPPI

CIVIL WAR SKETCHES.
CONFEDERATE FINANCE IN ALABAMA

III
DR. FISK’S BILL

THE DEAD OF PATRIOTS’ DAY ^[23]
APRIL 19, 1775 ^[24]